^M^'i 

■A 

i^-il;»j 

-n^BMiLT  QP  THE 


iiPON  THE  OE&R  OF  THE 


vT.  2-^.  n 


x*^ 


s^ 


^  tV^t  ®^^oIn9tf£t/  ^ 


PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


''^t 


"%. 


Division. .■.yrr^y^.-^i  OO 
Section *-S7-D   / 


ASSAU  LT 


OF    THE 


BISHOP  OF  WESTERN  NJW  YORK 


UPON    THE 


Jean  of  the  General  Theological  Seminary 


AND 


THE    DEANS    REPLY. 


NEW   YORK: 

Styles  &  Cash,  Steam  Printers,  Eighth  Avenue  and  14th  Street. 


1875 


PREFATORY    NOTE. 

At  the  urgent  request  of  many  friends  I  have  reluctantly  con- 
sented to  print  the  following  letters  in  a  pamphlet  form,  in  order  to 
give  them  a  wider  circulation  than  they  could  possibly  have  in  the 
columns  of  the  C/iiirc/i»ian,  in  which  they  originally  appeared. 

The  following  verbal  change  has  been  made  in  my  letters;  in  the 
communication  which  the  Clerical  Deputy  made  to  me  on  Wednes- 
day, October  21st,  1874,  respecting  the  charges  which  a  Bishop  had 
preferred  against  me,  he  doubtless  did  not  mention  the  name  of  the 
Bishop,  or  the  Diocese  to  which  the  Bishop  belonged — nor  could  the 
slip  of  paper  have  contained  such  information,  since  this  would  have 
been  a  violation  of  the  rules  of  secrecy,  which  the  House  had  pre- 
scribed during  the  discussion  of  my  case — hence  the  impersonal 
form  is  substituted,  "it  is  charged,"  &c.,  for  "the  Bishop  of  Western 
New  York,  or  Bishop  Coxe  charges."  I  knew  instantaneously,  how- 
ever, who  the  accuser  was,  and  so  did  every  one  else.  It  needed  not 
that  any  one  should  tell  me  or  others.  This  is  the  only  verbal 
change.  A  paragraph  has  been  added  near  the  close  of  my  second 
letter,  which  was  written  for  publication  in  the  Churchman,  but  which 
I  omitted  in  consequence  of  the  great  length  which  the  letter  had 
reached ;  it  is  now  inserted  because  it  is  worthy  of  consideration  in 
forming  an  estimate  of  the  character  of  the  Bishop's  assault  upon  me. 
The  paragraph  referred  to  occurs  on  page  61 ;  it  begins  with  the 
words,  "  To  show  the  doubting,  if  there  be  any,"  &c.,  and  concludes 
with  the  words,  "  But  I  must  forbear."  With  these  exceptions  the 
letters  are  reprinted  exactly  as  they  originally  appeared  in  the 
Churchman. 

In  an  appendix  I  have  added  the  letter  of  the  Rev.  E.  M. 
Pecke,  M.A.,  the  letter  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Lewis  of  Washington,  D.  C, 
my  letter,  addressed  to  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies, 
asking  to  be  allowed  to  be  heard  in  my  own  behalf,  and  the  names 
of  the  Trustees  of  the  General  Theological  Seminary  who  were 
present  at  the  annual  meeting  in  June,  1875,  seventy-seven  of  whom, 
in  the  extraordinary  language  of  Bishop  Coxe,  "  seemed  to  have  voted 
to  make  the  new  Dean." 

I  submit  this  correspondence  to  the  judgment  of  my  Brethren 
of  the  Clergy  and  Laity,  with  entire  confidence  that  they  will  do  me 
ample  justice  in  this  matter,  and  with  the  earnest  prayer  to  God  that 
He  will  overrule  this  miserable  scandal,  in  which  I  am  compelled  to 
take  so  prominent  a  part,  to  the  ultimate  good  of  His  Church. 

GEORGE  F.  SEYMOUR, 

General  Theological  Seminary, 

West  20th  Street  and  9th  Ave., 

October  IKA,  1875. 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arciiive  • 
in  2009  witii  funding  from 
Princeton  Tiieoiogicai  Seminary  Library 


littp://www.arcliive.org/details/assaultofbisliopoOOcoxe 


ASSAULT  OF  THE  BISHOP  OF  WESTERN  NEW  YORK, 

UPON    THE 

Dean  of  the  General  Theological  Seminary. 


BISHOP  COXE'S  FIRST  LETTER, 

From    the    Churc/iiiian,    September   ^t/i,    1875. 


THE    ILLINOIS    CASE    IN    THE    HOUSE    OF    DEPUTIES. 


LETTER    TO    A    DEPUTY, 


My  Dear  Sir: 

Nearly  a  year  ago  you  and  your  fellow-Deputies 
gave  solemn  judgment  in  the  Illinois  case.  Your  {)er- 
sonal  support  was  given  to  that  judgment,  and  in  so  doing 
you  performed  a  great  duty  to  the  Church,  or  else  you 
did  a  great  wrong.  Since  that  time  you  have  never 
ceased  to  hear  the  accusation  of  injustice.  The  Church 
has  been  flooded  with  complaints,  and  the  sympathies  of 
the  external  public  have  been  invoked.  The  aggrieved 
party  has  had  this  field  to  itself.  Nobody  has  replied. 
In  calm  dignity  or  well-restrained  disgust,  the  friends  of 
order  and  discipline  have  found  their  strength  in  the 
"  quietness  and  confidence"  which  can  afford  to  sit  still. 

Though  I  have  had  the  honor  to  share  in  these  re- 
proaches, I  have  steadfastly  refused  to  pay  any  attention 
to  the  vociferations  of  abusive  men.  The  Church  has  spo- 
ken once  and  again.  If  men  will  not  "  bear  the  Church," 
*  the  Master  has  assigned  them  a  place  where  we  need  not 
pursue  them.  I  have  confided  in  the  good  sense  of  the 
Church,  and  have  pointed  as  my  sufficient  defence  to  the 


very  publications  that  were  designed  to  injure  me.  No- 
body can  read  them  with  candor  and  judgment  without 
seeing  that  they  refute  themselves.  Never  before  have 
men  taken  such  pains  to  contradict  their  own  stories,  and 
to  expose  their  own  sinister  practices.  I  have  exhorted 
everybody  to  read  their  "  sworn  evidence,"  and  to  note  not 
merely  its  astounding  discrepancies,  but  the  force  it  lends 
to  every  charge  it  endeavors  to  disprove. 

But,  I  am  told  by  judicious  friends  that  this  calm 
confidence  may  be  carried  too  far :  that  while  we  mind 
our  business  and  accept  the  Church's  decisions,  there  are 
revolutionists  at  work  who  will  not  let  the  Church's  voice 
prevail.  Nay,  it  is  said  that^  by  silence  and  indifference 
on  the  one  side,  and  persistent  activity  on  the  other,  the 
Church's  authority  is  diminished,  and  opportunity  is 
gained  for  fresh  disturbances.  It  is  urged,  moreover,  that 
hundreds,  who  take  no  pains  to  inform  themselves,  are 
persuaded  that  charges,  in  view  of  which  the  House  of 
Deputies  acted,  have  been  disproved  and  virtualy  re- 
tracted ;  that  our  silence  gives  consent ;  that  we  have 
nothinof  to  sav ;  that  "sworn  evidence"  has  overborne 
and  confounded  all  opposition.  In  these  circumstances  I 
have  been  appealed  to  to  show  how  futile  are  such  out- 
cries and  how  thoroughly  established  are  the  facts  in  view 
of  which  the  Deputies  acted.  It  is  urged  that,  as  many 
relied  on  my  testimony  in  giving  their  judgment,  I  owe 
it  to  them  to  show  how  wisely  they  acted,  and  how  strong 
they  are  alike  in  demonstrated  facts  and  in  the  support 
of  the  Church.  Influenced  by  such  views,  I  address  yoa 
as  a  Deputy  and  as  a  friend.  I  have  been  convinced, 
until  now,  that  the  facts  speak  sufficiently  for  themselves. 
Nor  do  1  now  suppose  that  it  is  in  the  power  of  wrong- 
doers permanently  to  darken  counsel  by  words  without 
knowledge. 

But,  I  have  always  said  that  should  any  public  oc- 
casion be  given,  so  that  having  shunned  all  jDcrsonal  con- 


flict  I  might  find  myself  called  to  support  the  Church's 
decisions  against  overt  acts  of  a  revolutionary  character, 
I  would  not  keep  silence.  For  I  have  learned  from  that 
great  master  in  theology,  the  colossal  Bishop  of  St.  Da- 
vid's, to  follow  St.  Basil's  maxim  in  all  such  cases :  "  We 
are  not  always  to  keep  silence  under  calumnies;  not,  in- 
deed, that  by  contradicting  them  we  may  avenge  our- 
selves, but,  lest  we  should  give  free  course  to  falsehood. 

I  am  informed  that "  free  course"  has  been  too  long  con- 
ceded to  those  who  despise  government,  and  that  by  their 
persevering  efforts  they  are  disturbing  the  peace  of  the 
Church  and  the  operation  of  law.  It  is  said  that  a  suc- 
cessful stratagem  has  converted  our  "  Trustees  of  the 
General  Theological  Seminary"  into  a  third  House  and  a 
Supreme  Court  of  Appeal :  and  that,  by  ingenious  con- 
trivances, the  action  of  a  petty  minority  of  this  Board  is 
made  to  appear  to  the  public  generally,  and  to  hundreds 
of  good  men  in  the  Church,  to  be  a  reversal  of  judgment : 
the  voice  of  our  entire  Episcopate  and  of  hundreds  of 
picked  men  from  all  our  dioceses,  rebuking  and  over- 
ruling the  House  of  Deputies.  In  proof  of  this,  and  in 
connection  with  evidence  of  the  same  sort,  to  which  my 
attention  has  been  directed,  I  have  received  from  a  res- 
pected presbyter  of  Illinois,  as  a  specimen  of  what  is  go- 
ing on  in  that  quarter^  the  following  extract  from  one  of 
the  newspapers  of  Chicago  . 

"BISHOP-ELECT  OF  CHICAGO. 

"  The  majority  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  IlUnois,  will  be 
greatly  pleased  to  learn  that  the  Rev.  George  F.  Seymour,  D.D.,  was 
on  last  Thursday  elected  Permanent  Dean  of  the  General  Theologi- 
cal Seminary  at  New  York,  by  77  out  of  93  votes  cast  by  the  Trus- 
tees of  that  chief  institution  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  this  country. 
The  Board  of  Trustees  embraces  the  Bishops  and  other  prominent 
men  of  the  Church  from  each  diocese  in  the  United  States,  and  thus 
it  will  be  seen  that  Ur.  Seymour's  election  possesses  great  signifi- 
cance, especially  considering  the  fact  that  his  consecration  as  Bishop 
of  Illinois  was  defeated  last  Fall  by  the  Lower  House  of  the  General 


Convention.  The  result  signifies  a  great  ch.inge  of  sentiment  \n  the 
Episcopal  Church  in  favor  of  Seymour,  and  probably  also  in  favor  of 
Dr.  DeKoven,  /or  the  two  are  said  to  stand  together  on  doctrinal  ques- 
tions. Dr.  DeKoven  was  elected  Bishop  of  Illinois  last  February. 
The  sa  ne  influences  that  defeated  Dr.  Seymour's  consecration  un- 
doubtedly induced  many  of  the  Standing  Committees  of  dioceses 
to  reject  Dr.  DeKoven;  but  the  latter  is  still  Bishop-elect  of  the  dio- 
cese, and  this  action  of  the  Bishops  and  other  Trustees  of  the  Gen- 
eral Seminary  at  New  York,  in  reference  to  Dr.  Seymour,  will 
undoubtedly  have  a  strong  influence  to  induce  the  Standing  Com- 
mittees that  have  hitherto  acted  adversely,  to  reconsider  and  give 
consent  to  Dr.  DeKoven's  consecration.  Unless  such  shall  prove 
to  be  the  case,  there  will  be  a  manifest  inconsistency  in  the  treatment 
of  the  two  Divines. 

"  The  action  at  New  York  would  seem  also  to  indicate  that  the 
Bishops  are  not  in  sympathy  with  the  crusade  that  was  set  on  foot 
against  such  great  lights  as  Drs.  Seymour  and  DeKoven." 

To  those  who  know  anything  of  the  facts,  this  is  so 
absurd  as  to  provoke  nothing  worse  than  a  smile.  But  I 
am  assured  that  few  know  the  facts,  and  that  many  who 
see  through  the  faUacy  are  unable  to  demonstrate  it : 
while  tcngues  and  pens  and  presses  are  employed  actively 
in  circulating  and  exaggerating  the  impression  that  a 
great  wrong  has  been  done  to  Illinois,  and  to  its  first 
Elect,  and  that  the  Church  is  ready  and  an5:ious  to  re- 
verse her  decision.  By  taking  advantage  of  popular 
ignorance,  it  is  believed  that  it  is  in  the  power  of  the  in- 
subordinate'to  weaken  the  force  of  Canons  and  of  Legis- 
lation, and  to  create  a  state  of  things  which  must  prove 
disastrous  in  many  ways  to  the  peace  and  prosperity  of 
the  Church. 

It  may  be  so.  I  yield  to  the  convictions  of  others, 
and  most  reluctantly  accept  a  task  so  painful  that  I  would 
take  anv  honorable  course  to  escape  it.  Moral  cowardice 
is  a  very  convenient  fault,  and  I  dare  say  I  have  my 
share  of  it:  but,  it  is  grossly  criminal  in  a  Christian 
Bishop,  when  any  public  interest  of  the  Church  is  in  peril, 
to  prove  indifferent  to  his  trust,  or  to  leave  its  burdens  to 


others.  My  share,  in  all  this  business,  has  been  the  pro- 
duct not  merely  of  strong  convictions,  but  of  Providential 
circumstances,  of  thorough  information  as  to  facts,  and 
of  a  humble  prayer  to  God  that  he  would  support  me  in 
a  work  to  which  I  have  not  called  myself,  and  if  need 
be,  in  "patiently  suffering  for  the  Truth's  sake  " 

So,  then,  it  has  come  to  this  :  the  servant  of  the 
Church  is  to  be  made  its  Master.  An  appeal  is  made, 
from  you  Deputies,  to  the  Trustees  of  the  General  Theo- 
logical Seminary.  Our  Seminary  Board,  the  creature  of 
our  Legislation,  is  to  overrule  our  great  Synod:  it  is  to 
be  erected  into  a  third  House,  and  a  Supreme  Court  of 
Appeal ;  and  the  peaceful  Academic  Courts  of  Sacred 
Learning  are  to  be  turned  into  an  arena  of  Church  Poli- 
tics. What  an  engine  of  mischief  is  thus  created ;  what 
a  perversion  of  Church  funds  and  of  holy  trusts !  What 
perils  threaten  us,  if,  to  all  the  evils  of  internal  misman- 
agement, is  to  be  added  such  a  prostitution  of  the  corpor- 
ate powers  of  the  Seminary  to  the  service  of  faction  and 
party.  Let  us  first  come  to  the  facts  which  are  so  cun- 
ningly made  to  appear  as  they  are  not. 

The  Journal  of  the  late  Annual  Meeting  of  the  Trus- 
tees of  the  General  Theological  Seminary  is  now  before  me. 
How  delusive  is  the  impression  conveyed,  in  the  Chicago 
paragraph,  as  to  the  significance  and  weight  of  their  ac- 
tion, is  apparent  from  the  following  facts  :  This  Journal 
informs  us  that  the  number  of  Trustees  is  421,  inclusive 
of  our  57  Bishops.  Of  these  400  Trustees,  77  seem  to 
have  voted  to  make  the  new  Dean.  There  were  but  sh 
Bishops  present :  of  these  how  many  voted  for  him  does 
not  appear.  At  all  events,  a  mere  fraction  of  the  corpor- 
ate body  is  responsible  for  a  measure,  of  the  importance 
of  which  I  do  not  now  propose  to  speak  particularly. 

Of  the  constitution  of  our  General  Seminary,  few 
know  anything  at  all  ;  of  its  practical  management, 
still  less  is  understood.     But  it  should  be  known  that  it 


10 

is  in  no  respect  whatever  a  representative  Council  of  the 
Church.  Of  its  400  trustees,  scattered  over  a  continent 
from  Maine  to  California,  only  a  small  number  is  able  to 
attend  the  meetings  of  the  Board.  The  local  trustees  and 
their  near  neighbors  are  the  only  members  who  are  always 
able  to  be  present ;  and  supposing  these  to  be  about 
equally  divided  as  to  any  measure,  a  few  of  the  distant 
members,  summoned  for  the  purpose,  can  generally  turn 
the  vote  in  tavor  of  a  moiety  which  is  organized  and 
which  is  resolved  to  work  the  Seminary  in  its  own  in- 
terest. The  only  check  on  this  operation  is  to  be  found 
in  a  large  attendance  of  Bishops,  who  can  insist  upon  a 
vote  by  Orders.  Rarely,  however,  are  the  Bishops  able, 
in  the  hottest  days  of  the  year,  to  assemble  in  New  York, 
coming  from  great  distances  with  peril  to  health,  with 
large  sacrifice  of  time  and  money,  and  with  injury  to 
their  more  immediate  work  at  home.  Formerly  there 
was  a  triennial  meeting,  at  the  time  of  our  General  Con- 
vention, and  this  enabled  a  full  Board  of  Trustees,  once 
in  three  years,  to  give  attention  to  business  and  to  exer- 
cise some  control.  Bat  this  has  been  abolished.  A  full 
meeting  of  the  Trustees  is  now  a  practical  impossibility, 
and  a  fluctuating  minority,  too  frequently  swayed  by  the 
manipulation  of  a  few  persistent  spirits,  is  virtually 
clothed  with  irresponsible  power.  Over  and  over  again 
has  it  proved  itself  able  to  thwart  the  known  wishes  of 
the  Church,  and  even  the  recorded  votes  of  the  Trustees, 
when,  in  exceptional  cases,  a  fair  attendance  has  been 
secured. 

These  fects,  which  are  notorious,  sufficiently  explain 
the  late  action,  and  also  the  use  which  is  made  of  it  by 
those  who  brought  it  about.  That  its  "significance"  is 
widely  different  from  the  face  that  is  put  upon  it,  must 
be  evident  from  the  Journal  itself;  from  its  record  of 
attendance  and  of  the  vote. 

And  thus  observation  is  withdrawn  from  the    real 


11 

state  of  the  case,  to  which  I  now  direct  attention.  The 
Illinois  case  was  decided,  in  the  House  of  Deputies,  by  a 
most  significant  and  emphatic  vote.  It  has  been  again 
decided  by  action  still  more  deliberate  and  emphatic. 
This  occurred  after  the  most  persevering  efforts  of  par- 
tisans to  create  sympathy,  while  a  patient  silence  was  the 
only  answer  of  those  on  whom  they  poured  the  vials  of 
their  calumny  and  abuse.  This  is  the  real  history,  and 
it  must  no  longer  be  thrust  out  of  view. 

Considering  its  solemnity,  and  the  painful  nature  of 
such  a  vote,  the  refusal  of  the  House  of  Deputies  to  con- 
firm the  Illinois  election  is  one  of  the  most  significant 
actions  of  that  House  in  the  records  of  our  great  Synod. 
To  vote  in  favor  of  such  a  confirmation  is  easy  and 
agreeable.  Everybody  is  anxious  to  find  an  excuse  for 
doing  what  everybody  likes  to  do.  To  vote  No  is  to 
make  enemies,  and  to  provoke  the  spite  of  the  worst 
characters  in  the  Church ;  of  that  class  of  men  rebuked 
so  often  by  St.  Paul,  and  of  whom  we  know,  from  our 
Lord's  parable  of  the  Tares,  there  shall  always  be  speci- 
mens among  the  wheat  till  the  end  of  the  world.  Now, 
nobody  likes  to  be  hammered  upon  the  anvil  of  ''Alex- 
ander the  Coppersmith."  The  petty  terrorism  of  such 
men  is  a  real  power.  To  resist  them  is  to  excite  their 
unscrupulous  animosity.  It  requires  nerve,  as  well  as 
principle,  to  defy  them.  In  the  Illinois  case  this  class  of 
men  was  known  to  be  enlisted  in  behalf  of  the  candidate. 
In  the  holy  precincts  of  the  Synod  they  were  active  night 
and  day.  They,  and  their  innocent  but  deluded  instru- 
ments, were  able  to  practise  on  many  gentle  and  un- 
suspecting natures.  The  motives  which  were  addressed 
to  the  feeble  and  shallow  were,  in  some  cases,  such  as 
might  be  paralleled  only  by  the  tactics  of  political  dema- 
gogues.   I  speak  of  what  I  know  ;  others  know  it  as  well. 

Far  be  it  from,  me  to  censure  those  who  voted  for 
the  confirmation.     On  the  contrary  I  shall  plead  their 


12 

cause.  While  not  a  few  were  influenced  by  such  opera- 
tions, many  good  and  true  men  were  most  honorably  per- 
suaded of  the  entire  fitness  of  the  candidate.  Others, 
again,  were  amiably  disposed  to  give  the  candidate  "  the 
benefit  of  a  doubt."  When  I  reflect  on  the  issue  that  was 
made ;  on  the  many  inducements  that  were  presented  to 
fair  and  sound  minds ;  and  on  the  perils  and  responsi- 
bilities assumed  by  every  one  who  voted  in  the  Negative, 
I  consider  the  vote  of  the  House  solemn  and  significant 
even  to  sublimity.  If,  in  the  circumstances,  any  comfort 
can  be  extracted  from  the  fact  that  this  overwhelming 
decision  lacked  a  few  votes  of  the  "  numerical  majority," 
by  all  means  let  that  comfort  be  enjoyed. 

I  say,  "  in  the  circumstances"  ;  and  by  this  I  do  not 
merely  refer  back  to  what  I  have  said  to  prove  the  heroic 
character  of  a  negative  vote.  I  have  a  more  serious  mean- 
ing than  that. 

How  comes  it  to  pass  that  many  a  true  and  worthy 
name  is  found  recorded  in  favor  of  the  Confirmation,  when 
the  same  name  is  on  the  record  in  favor  of  "  the  Ritual 
Canon  "  1  The  answer  is  plain.  Those  who  managed 
the  struggle  to  obtain  Confirmation  did  so,  as  you  are 
well  aware,  by  a  persevering  course  of  suppression  and 
concealment.  They  resented  the  idea  that  their  candi- 
date was  one  of  the  class  which  the  pending  "  Ritual 
Canon"  was  aiming  to  chastise.  Good  men  voted  for  him, 
because  they  were  lead  to  believe  he  was  no  "  Ritualist." 
They  believed  he  had  no  sympathy  with  the  outspoken 
President  of  Racine.  Who  believes  it  now '?  "  The  two 
are  said  to  siand  together  on  doctrinal  questions,'^  according 
to  the  Chicago  journalist,  and  that  such  is  the  case  no- 
body will  now  deny. 

But,  observe,  the  entire  plea  which  was  made  for 
their  candidate  in  the  House  of  Deputies,  was  based  on 
the  persevering  denial  of  such  an  idea.  Who  stood  up 
and  took  the  fair  ground,  "  Our  candidate  is  as  much  a 


13 

Ritualist  as  his  friend,  for  whose  express  benefit  you  are 
called  upon  to  enact  a  Ritual  Canon  ;  but  we  mean  to  sus- 
tain Ritualism^  and  we  demand  his  Confirmation  in  view 
of  this  position  "  ?  This  is  said  now  defiantly  enough. 
But,  at  that  time,  their  candidate  was  represented  as  an 
old-fashioned  ''  Hooker "  Churchman.  A  shrewd  old 
Deputy  observed,  '•  I  began  to  think  him  hardly  High 
Churchman  enough  for  me." 

Think,  then,  of  what  was  involved  in  a  negative 
vote.  It  was  a  grave  impeachment  of  the  sincerity  of  all 
those  representations.  It  was  something  more  serious 
still :  for  the  candidate  himself  was  on  solemn  record. 
He  had  assured  the  House  that  certain  statements  as  to 
his  official  conduct  in  the  Seminary  had  no  foundation  in 
fact  whatever.  Now,  it  was  comparatively  easy  to  credit 
that  those  statements  grew  out  of  exaggerated  im- 
pressions, the  result  of  prejudices  ;  of  mistakes,  honestly 
entertained,  but  capable  of  biassing  the  judgment  and 
disturbing  recollections.  It  was  comparatively  easy  to 
think  this,  concerning  men  like  Seabury  and  Vinton  ;  but 
it  was  a  hard  thing  to  believe  that  there  was  any  con- 
cealment, equivocation,  or  duplicity  in  the  solemn  denials 
of  a  candidate  expecting  immediate  Consecration,  and 
tendering  a  candid  statement  of  facts,  to  a  Council  of  the 
Church  about  to  vote  for  or  against  him,  under  the  In- 
vocation of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Such  were  the  circumstances ;  such  was  the  issue, 
and  as  such,  I  accept  it  If  it  appears,  that,  in  these 
circumstances  the  House  of  Deputies  was  honorably  and 
fairly  dealt  with  ;  if  it  appears  that  the  candidate  him- 
self used  no  artifices,  suppressed  nothing  which  the  House 
had  a  right  to  know,  and  in  all  respects  satisfied  the 
anxieties  of  the  House,  by  a  full  statement  of  what  he 
professed  to  state  candidly,  and  for  their  entire  enlighten- 
ment, as  to  the  disputed  facts ;  if  all  this  appears,  from 
what  is  now  disclosed,  then  has  an  honest  and  true  man 


14 

been  made  the  victim  of  unfounded  prejudice,  and  all 
who  voted  or  counselled  against  him  have  done  him  a 
cruel  wrong.     I  accept  this  issue. 

And  because  I  have  been  held  responsible  in  large 
measure  for  the  result^  I  consent  to  speak  now,  when  the 
result  is  represented  as  reversed  and  repudiated,  and 
when  all  who  contributed  to  bring  it  about  are  subjected 
to  such  persevering  insult  and  rebuke.  I  shall  prove, 
then,  from  the  publications  of  the  defeated  candidate  him- 
self, that  he  has  contradicted  his  own  solemn  statements 
and  refuted  his  own  stories ;  has  filled  in  making  any 
one  detailed  statement  to  which  he  adheres,  and  has  cor- 
roborated by  the  statements  of  others  almost  everything 
which  he  gave  the  House  of  Deputies  to  suppose  untrue. 
All  this  I  shall  be  able  to  show  from  an  analysis  of  his 
affidavits,  which  I  made  immediately  on  the  receipt  of 
them,  but  which  I  trusted  I  might  not  be  called  to 
make  public.  I  bore  him  no  ill-will,  and  wished  to  leave 
him  to  his  own  better  disposition  and  calmer  moments. 
I  was  not  his  prosecutor.  I  was  satisfied  with  the  re- 
sult, and  I  was  sorry  for  the  man.  It  was  plain  to  me 
that  excitement  and  irritation  had  disturbed  alike  his 
memory  and  his  judgment.  For  his  self-stultifying  oaths 
and  affirmations  I  would  not  hold  him  entirely  respon- 
sible, and  I  am  truly  pained  that  his  injudicious  friends 
have  forced  on  a  crisis  which  requires  my  further  notice. 

In  the  second  Illinois  case  disguises  were  thrown 
aside  Those  who  had  imagined  that  the  original  candi- 
date was  no  "ritualist,"  and  never  had  been  one,  and 
never  had  any  sympathy  with  the  class  against  which 
"  the  Ritual  Canon "  had  been  directed,  were  now 
amazed  to  find  the  true  state  of  affairs,  and  to  observe 
how  coolly  the  old  pretences  were  thrown  to  the  winds. 
The  same  parties  who  had  pressed  the  confirmation  of 
their  candidate  because  he  was  not  a  ritualist,  were  now 
resolved  to  re-elect  him  because    he  was      The    extreme 


15 

party,  with  no  effort  to  conceal  their  contempt  for  the 
House  of  Deputies,  announced  their  abihty  to  re-elect 
him,  or,  tailing  to  secure  his  consent,  then  to  choose  an- 
other whose  election  might  re-assert  the  propriety  of 
then-  original  choice,  and  whose  consecration  as  a  Bishop 
would  vindicate  their  former  Elect  and  rebuke  those  who 
had  contributed  in  any  way  to  his  defeat.  With  this 
avowed  purpose  they  selected  as  their  candidate  the  very 
j)erson  whose  words  and  doings  had  called  for  the  "  Ritual 
Canon,"  and,  by  "  a  technical  majority,"  they  elected 
him  In  accepting  the  announcement,  this  second  Elect 
gracefully  pronounced  it  a  virtual  vindication  of  his  friend, 
the  former  candidate.  I  ask,  had  the  unity  of  their 
views  been  fairly  stated  to  the  House  by  this  reverend 
gentleman  during  the  discussion,  what  sort  of  a  vote 
would  have  been  recorded  in  his  favor  1  As  for  the  pre- 
tences then  made,  I  ask  again.  Who  believes  them  now  1 
It  is  openly  avowed  and  confessed,  by  the  partisans  of 
both  candidates,  that  the  two  elections  in  Illinois  were 
one  in  spirit  and  intent,  and  fell  upon  men  of  the  same 
extreme  school  and  party.  And  now,  I  say,  as  my  sec- 
ond proposition,  that  the  action  of  the  Honse  of  Deputies 
has  been  sustained  by  action  still  more  deliberate  and 
emphatic.  That  this  was  done  in  spite  of  the  most  per- 
severing efforts  to  create  sympathy,  and  in  the  absence 
of  all  rejoinder,  will  hardly  be  denied.  I  have  already 
shown  that  the  second  election  in  Illinois  was  an  appeal 
to  the  Standing  Committees  to  rebuke  the  House  of 
Deputies,  and  thus  indirectly  to  vindicate  the  candidate 
they   rejected. 

It  was  little  doubted  that  the  second  candidate  would 
be  confirmed,  and  that  thus  a  double  triumph  would  be 
secured.  The  Church  had  been  flooded  with  pamphlets 
and  newspaper  articles  designed  to  overwhelm  all  opposi- 
tion, and  to  bury  opponents  under  a  mountain  of"  obloquy 
and  reproach.      These  measures  had  not  been   without 


16 

their  effect.  It  was  conjectured,  therefore,  that  the 
Standing  Committees  would  be  found  less  difficult  to 
satisfy  than  the  Deputies.  They  were  plied  with  assur- 
ances that  the  silence  of  the  other  party  was  a  confession 
of  impotency.  They  were  flattered ;  they  were  threatened. 
With  some,  the  poUtical  process  called  "log-rolling"  was 
unblushingly  resorted  to :  "  You  vote  for  our  candidate, 
and  we  will  vote  for  yours."  Under  such  a  variety  of 
influences,  it  was  expected  that  the  Standing  Committees, 
removed  from  the  excitements  and  the  publicity  of  a 
Synod,  would  naturally  yield  to  the  temptation  of  passing 
the  new  candidate,  by  a  mere  routine  vote  on  the  regu- 
larity of  the  papers,  throwing  the  whole  responsibility  on 
the  Bishops. 

I  shared  in  this  expectation.  The  case  was  a  vexa- 
tious one,  and  the  Standing  Committees  might  well  wish 
to  be  rid  of  it.  The  new  Elect  was  a  man  entitled  to 
respect,  and  encompassed  with  personal  friends.  He  was, 
moreover,  believed  to  be  above  trickery  and  deception. 
Nobody  accused  him  of  "  paltering  in  a  double  sense." 
His  position  was  unambiguous,  avowed,  and  defiant.  He 
was  a  man  whom  all  parties  would  have  welcomed  to  the 
Episcopate,  had  not  his  worse  than  doubtful  theology 
made  it  impossible  for  us  to  reconcile  his  confirmation 
with  fidelity  to  the  Church's  Law  and  Doctrine.  But, 
the  question  was,  would  the  Church,  by  confirming  his 
alection,  stultity  herself,  and  rebuke  the  House  of 
Deputies  for  refusing  a  candidate  of  the  same  opinions 
and  the  same  party  ?  All  who  were  not  too  stupid  to 
recognize  this  issue,  felt  its  magnitude,  and  awaited  the 
result  with  anxiety. 

God  l)e  thanked  for  the  decisive  response  of  the 
Church  b}'  her  constitutional  representatives.  Diocese 
after  diocese  gave  answer  without  wavering ;  the  excep- 
tions were  easily  accounted  for ;  the  decision  was  over- 
whelming     It  amounted  to  a  "vindication,"  not  of  the 


17 

rejected  candidate,  but  of  the  Deputies  who  rejected  him. 
For,  as  it  was  claimed  that  this  case  carried  with  it  the 
other,  and  that  the  success  of  the  second  would  be  a  vir- 
tual triumph  and  "  vindication"  of  the  first,  so  the  defeat 
of  No.  2  was  a  fresh  defeat  of  No.  1 ;  "  the  two  being  said 
to  stand  tegether  on  doctrinal  questions."  Thus  it  was 
understood  by  all  parties ;  and  so,  while  maintaining  her 
doctrines  undefiled,  by  her  repeated  and  decisive  action, 
has  the  Church  rebuked  all  such  as  sully  the  sanctities  of 
an  Episcopal  election,  and  pollute  her  councils  by  artifices 
and  disingenuous  manoeuvres. 

I  shall  pass,  in  a  succeeding  letter,  to  other  particu- 
lars. Truly  yours, 

A.  Cleveland  Coxe, 
Bishop  of  Western  Netv  York. 
September  1,  1875. 


BISHOP  COXE'S  SECOND  LETTER, 

From    f/ir   C/in?-c/ima/i,   Septeiiiber    11///,   1875. 

SECOND    LETTER    TO    A     DEPUTY. 

My  Dear  Sir: 

It  has  been  admitted  that  unless  the  House  of 
Deputies  was  unfairly  dealt  with,  they  inflicted  a  wrong 
in  refusing  the  confirmation  of  the  elected  Bjshop  of 
Illinois.  In  other  words,  I  can  account  for  their  decision 
in  no  other  way  than  this :  They  said,  "  There  is  proof 
of  much  that  requires  explanation,  and  the  explanations 
proffered  are  ambiguous  and  unsatisfactory ;  we  cannot 
confirm  the  election  of  a  presbyter  who,  at  such  a  crisis, 
fails  to  tell  us  all  he  knows  about  serious  occurrences  and 
abuses,  and  who  leaves  us  under  the  profound  impression 
that  he  equivocates  and  suppresses  truth." 

That  not  a  few  reasoned  thus,  I  have  been  well  in- 


formed  ;  it  is  the  natural  conclusion  that  sucli  were  the 
impressions  that  produced  so  solemn  and  pregnant  a 
result. 

Were  these  impressions  jusf?  I  answer,  The  Pro- 
fessor himself  has  proved  that  they  were  so,  and  has  left 
abundant  evidence  in  the  hand  of  the  future  hititorian  as 
to  the  unfortunate  course — the  product,  perhaps,  of  bad 
advice — which  he  adopted  in  this  serious  crisis. 

In  the  Professor's  publications,  since  the  adjourn- 
ment of  the  House,  he  has  directed  public  attention 
chiefly  to  one  point  as  the  Crux  of  his  whole  case.  He 
claims  to  have  been  grossly  misrepresented  as  to  the 
words  he  used  when  the  Bishop  of  Western  New  York 
asked  him  a  certain  question,  at  his  official  visitation  in 
the  Spring  of  1873.  Instead  of  the  expressions  which 
the  Bishop  recollects,  he  now  makes  oath  to  his  own  re- 
collections as  follows : 

"At  that  visitation,  the  moment  the  fact  of  Father  Grafton's 
lectures  was  mentioned,  I  stated  to  him,  in  terms  too  strong  and 
clear  to  permit  the  possibility  of  mistake,  that  those  lectures  7oere 
delivered  without  my  knowledge  or  consent^  and  that  if  I  had  known  of 
them  in  time,  I  sJioiild  certainly  have  prohibited  themy 

The  italics  are  his  own.  This  affidavit  was  solemn- 
ly made,  about  three  weeks  after  he  had  sent  in  his  ex- 
planations to  the  House.  If  his  memory  is  good  for 
anything,  and  if  his  story  is  artless  truth,  we  shall  find 
an  entire  agreement,  therefore,  between  this  testimony 
and  the  statement  he  had  sent  to  the  House,  signed  with 
his  own  hand.  On  the  contrary,  the  two  stories  are  flat 
contradictions;  if  this  affidavit  tells  the  truth,  it  is  im- 
possible that  his  statement  to  the  House  was  a  faithful 
account  of  facts.  I  am  pained  to  direct  attention  to  this 
dilemma ;  but  my  forbearance  has  at  last  ceased  to  be 
consistent  with  duty. 

I  must  leave  the  Professor,  therefore,  in  the  situation 
he   has  made    for  himself.     He   swears  he    said   certain 


19 

words  to  me,  in  1873,  about  which  there  can  be  "  no 
possibility  of  mistake."  Observe,  then,  the  issue  is  about 
words :  all  that  he  and  others  may  swear  about  his  doings 
may  be  true ;  but  that  is  not  the  point,  though  he  shifts  his 
ground  and  makes  it  appear  so.  Whether  through  con- 
fusion or  design,  I  cannot  say ;  but  he  compiles  his 
pamphlet  on  the  assumption  that  this  issue  is  one  as  to 
his  conduct  chiefly,  whereas  the  primary  point  must  be 
as  to  what  he  told  the  Bishop  "at  that  visitation."  Major 
Andre,  when  he  was  captured,  might  have  told  the  scouts 
that  he  was  travelling  under  a  pass  from  General  Arnold  ; 
had  he  done  so^  and  produced  it,  he  would  have  gone  on 
unmolested ;  but  he  became  confused,  and  let  out  a  less 
convenient  truth,  which  he  did  not  mean  to  betray.  So, 
allowing  all  that  is  now  sworn  to,  to  be  true  so  far  as 
concerns  his  previous  conduct  it  is  possible^  at  least,  that 
the  Professor  became  confused  and  said  what  he  does  not 
now  recollect,  because  he  is  under  the  powerful  impres- 
sion of  what  he  might  have  said.  In  the  "  issue  of  ver- 
acity" which  he  so  gratuitously  made,  all  turns  on  what 
he  said  "  at  that  visitation."  Primarily,  as  to  the  issue 
he  thus  chose  to  make,  this  is  the  question  :  Are  the  Bis- 
hop's recollections  less  worthy  of  credit  than  the  Profes- 
sor's, admitting  both  to  be  sincere,  and  that  a  great 
mistake  has  been  made  by  one  or  the  other?  This,  then, 
is  the  only  question  in  the  "  issue  of  veracity,"  so-called. 
Let  us  take  the  Professor's  own  sworn  statement. 
If  his  memory  is  correct,  then,  in  the  Spring  of  1873, 
(1)  he  knew  that  "■  Father  Grafton's"  Lectures  were  a 
fact,  and  by  accounting  for  them  as  a  fact,  he  admitted 
it ;  (2)  by  using  the  title  "  Father,"  he  admitted  the  some- 
what anomalous  position  of  "  Father  Grafton"  among  the 
presbyters  of  our  Church;  (3)  by  the  use  of  the  plural 
("  lectures"),  he  admitted  that  he  had  lectured  on  more 
than  one  occasion:  (4)  by  his  explanations,  he  further  ad- 
mitted that  "  those  Lectures"  shoidd  have  been  prohibited 


20 

if  possible ;  (5)  that  he  would  have  prohibited  them  if  he 
had  known  of  them  in  time  ;  (6)  that  he  had  power  to  do 
so  as  acting  Dean;  and  (7)  that  nothing  but  want  of 
knowledge,  in  time  to  prohibit  them,  prevented  him  from 
so  doing.  Refer  back  to  his  words,  as  above,  and  you 
will  see  that  they  involve  all  these  admissions. 

Did  he  make  these  same  admissions  to  the  House  of 
Deputies?  On  the  conirary  he f/atl//  denied  thai  an//fhi)i(/ 
of  the  kind  had  occurred  ;  and  he  went  on  to  give  a  detail- 
ed and  circumstantial  account  of  what  did  occur,  which, 
071  the  supposition  that  this  oath  is  true,  must  necessarily  be 
the  reverse  of  truth,  in  almost  every  particular.  Such  is 
the  record. 

Thus,  according  to  the  certified  record  now  before 
me,  he  had  been  asked  the  following  question : 

"Did  the  Rev.  Mr.  Grafton,  with  your  consent  or  knowledge, 
ever  lecture  to  or  address  the  students  of  the  Seminary  upon  any 
subject,  and  under  what  circumstances .''  " 

His  reply  is  (1)  '•  He  never  did,  with  vay  knowledge 
and  consent ;"  after  which,  with  a  brief  intervening  am- 
biguity, he  proceeds  i^l)  to  answer  for  •'  the  circum- 
stances," in  the  following  words  : 

"The  facts  were  simply  these:  The  Rev.  Mr.  Grafton — on  one 
occasion  (1)  called  upon  a  siude/it,  at  his  room  in  the  Seminary,  and 
while  there  other  students  (2)  ///  neighboring  rooms  (3)  heard  ot  his 
presence,  and  came  in  to  see  him,  and  requested  him  to  tell  them 
about  Cotoley,  and  the  plan  and  purpose  of  the  brotherhood  of  which 
Mr.  Grafton  is  a  member.  The  Rev.  Mr.  Grafton,  as  I  was  informed 
after  the  occurrence,  had  no  design  (4)  ^adien  he  called  (5)  of  holding 
any  such  (G)  conversation;  it  was  (7)  simply  accidental.  I  did  not  learn 
of  it  (8)  //////■/  some  time  after  it  took  place,  (9)  and  /  had  nothing 
■whatever  to  do  with  it.'' 

The  italics,  which  are  my  own,  and  the  numerals 
which  I  have  introduced,  mark  particulars  which  deserve 
special  attention. 

In  the  most  solemn  crisis  of  his  life,  when  it  seemed 
impossible  that  the  least  suppression  of  truth  could  be  re- 


21 

sorted  to,  or  the  slightest  equivocation  tolerated  by  one 
thus  testifying  before  a  Council  of  the  Church,  assembled 
under  the  invocation  of  the  Holy  Ghost — the  Professor 
is  responsible  for  having  made  this  affirmation.  Three 
weeks  later  he  makes  oath  to  a  statement,  which^  if  it  be 
true,  convicts  this  statement  of  equivocation  or  untruth, 
in  almost  every  particular.  According  to  the  oath,  he 
knew,  and  the  Bishop  had  been  told  "  in  terms  too  strong 
and  clear  to  permit  the  possibilUy  of  mis  lake  ^^^  that  Lectures 
had  been  delivered,  that  they  were  such  lectures  as  should 
have  been  prohibited,  and  that  he  would  have  prohibited 
them  himself,  but  for  his  want  of  timely  information. 
But  he  not  only  gave  the  House  of  Deputies  to  under- 
stand that  absolutely  nothing  of  this  kind  had  occurred  : 
instead  thereof  he  tried  to  make  them  believe  that  the 
whole  story  grew  out  (1)  of  a  casual  aUl  (2)  on  one  occa- 
sion, when  (3)  students  in  "  neighboring  rooms"  (4)  heard 
of  his  presence,  (5)  came  in  and  had  a  conversation  with 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Gralton,  (6)  the  whole  being  simply  accident- 
al. In  short,  he  led  them  to  imagine,  so  far  as  his  state- 
ment was  credited^  that  (1)  nothing  had  occurred  which 
he  could  have  prohibited  if  he  tmuld,  and  (2)  that  nothing 
had  occurred  which  he  should  have  prohibited  if  he  could. 

I  am  amazed  and  mortified  that  this  is  matter  of 
history.  But,  I  quote  the  record  as  I  find  it,  and  will 
not  aggravate  it  by  printing  the>e  contradictory  state- 
ments in  parallel  columns.  Let  the  reader  try  this  ex- 
periment. They  defy  explanation  and  all  attempts  to 
harmonize  them. 

For  alas,  the  attempts  I  have  made  to  reduce  them  to 
some  pf)ssible  solution,  are  blown  to  the  winds  by  the 
"sworn  evidence."  which  multiplies  details  and  brings 
out  fiicts  of  such  irrepressible  awkwardness  as  to  dislocate 
the  most  ingenious  contrivances.  The  profes-or  has  taken 
great  pains  to  furnish  this  evidence  against  himself,  and 
I  mention   it  in  all    charity,  because  it  indicates  a  coufu- 


22 

sion  of  iriind  which  may  plead  his  apology.  In  the  excite- 
ment and  irritation  to  which  he  had  been  subjected,  this 
is  the  very  probable  source  of  his  otherwise  unaccountable 
conduct. 

The  House  of  Deputies,  however,  was  not  merely 
trifled  with  by  these  detailed  mis-statements  of  facts :  it 
was  yet  further  mystified  by  equivocations.  It  was  pub- 
licly known  that  "  Father  Grafton"  had  been  present  at 
a  "  High  Mass"  celebrated  by  the  "  C.  B.  S.,"  had  preached 
on  the  occasion  and  taken  part  in  the  business,  as  a  mem- 
ber, offering  an  important  Uesolution ;  all  which  had 
been  published  by  the  Confraternity  itself.  That  he  was 
a  member  of  the  G.  B.  S.  was  a  natural  inference,  and  no 
apology  is  due  for  such  an  inference  in  view  of  these  facts. 
The  Bishop  of  Western  New  York  had  stated,  very  cau- 
tiously, that  "  an  active  agent  of  the  C.  B.  S.,  or  of  the 
system  it  sustains^  was  permitted  to  lecture  to  students  of 
the  Seminary,  in  a  private  room,  on  his  peculiar  views  of 
the  Holy  Eucharist." 

The  Professor  was  asked,  accordingly,  as  to  this  point, 
and  he  answered  • 

"  I  never  allowed  or  k/ic-w  of  any  Priest  of  the  C.  B.  S.  beifig  in 
the  Seminary  on  any  occasion  to/iafsocver,  since  I  have  been  in  charge 
of  the  Seminary." 

Could  any  Deputy  conceive  that  this  meant  anything 
less  than  it  seems  to  mean?  Those  who  voted  for  the 
confirmation  of  the  Professor,  had  a  right  to  infer  that  the 
Bishop  of  Western  New  York  was  strangelj'  and  unac- 
countably mistaken ;  that  "  Father  Grafton"  had  never 
been  in  the  Seminary  on  an}-  occasion  whatever ;  or  that, 
if  he  had,  the  Professor  never  knew  it.  Many  did  infer 
all  this  ;  were  convinced  that  the  mere  accidental  m// was 
no  real  exception  to  this  sweeping  affirmation ;  they  re- 
garded the  Professor  as  an  injured  man,  and  gave  him 
their  vote^  and  were  grieved  that  he  was  not  made  a  Bis- 
hop accordingly. 


23 

But  lie  now  gives  us  sworn  evidence  that  Father 
Grafton  was  actually  domiciled  in  the  Seminary  by  his 
official  consent;  lodged  there  and  lectured  there,  and  lec- 
tured, in  part,  on  the  Holy  Eucharist,  with  many  other 
aggravating  circumstances.  Admitting  now  that  he  never 
consented  to  this,  directl}^  or  indirectly,  how  could  he  tell 
the  Deputies  that  "  he  never  kneiv  of  any  Priest  of  the  C. 
B.  S.  being  in  the  Semiiian/,  or  lecturing  to  the  students  on 
any  occasion  "  Yet  he  did  so  in  circumstances  the  most 
solemn.  To  suspect  an  equivocation  seemed  uncharit- 
able; and  it  is  only  by  the  great  mercy  of  God  that  he 
escaped  being  consecrated,  a  few  days  later,  with  words 
in  his  mouth  which  he  now  swears  were  not  strictly  true. 

How  can  it  be  explained  that.  Father  Grafton's  Lec- 
tures being  such  as  he  swears  he  knew  them  to  be,  in  tl^e 
Spring  of  1873,  he  could  now  affirm  that  he  only  made 
a  call  on  one  occasion ;  and  that  he  never  even  knew  of  a 
Priest  of  the  C.  B.  S.  being  in  the  Seminary  on  any  occa- 
sion 1  If  he  meant  that  he  did  not  know  that  he  was  such, 
at  that  time,  why  did  he  not  explain  it  so  ?  If  he  meant 
that  Father  Grafton  was  no  longer  a  Priest  of  the  C.  B.  S., 
in  spite  of  all  appearances  to  the  contrary,  why  was  this 
point  left  in  the  dark  7  Was  this  dealing  fairly  with  the 
House  of  Deputies "?  Was  there  no  suggestio  falsi  in  such 
a  pregnant  suppressio  veri  ?  The  "  sworn  evidence"  gives 
us  the  very  narrow  chink  through  which  conscience 
makes  an  exit  from  the  tight  place  in  which  it  is  com- 
pressed by  such  inquiries.  The  Rev.  Mr.  Grafton  imti- 
mates  as  follows : 

"  Though  a  member  of  the  Confraternity  of  the  Blessed  Sacra- 
ment when  residing  in  England,  I  gave  up  all  active  connection  with 
it  on,  returning  to  this  country,"  etc. 

The  answer  is  a  plain  one.  However  this  may  be, 
the  fact  of  membership  is  thus  confessed,  and  among  all 
those  who  are  not  initiated  into  the  scliool  of  "  non- natur- 
al interpretations,"  preaching,  sitting  in  business  meetings, 


u 

and  offering  resolutions  in  any  body,  amount  to  active  con- 
nection with  it.  I  cannot  credit  that,  in  his  cooler  mo- 
ments, the  Professor  will  derive  any  comfort  from  the 
refuge  he  may  have  found,  in  a  moment  of  agitation,  from 
such  a  pretext  as  this. 

I  have  no  disposition  to  press  these  appalling  facts. 
When  I  first  read  the  Professor's  petulant  pamphlet,  I 
was  amazed  at  the  inconsistencies  and  contradictions  to 
which  he  was  committed.  I  felt  sure  that  everybody 
who  would  read  and  compare  the  various  and  conflicting 
stories  would  comprehend  the  case,  and  I  rejoiced  that 
no  necessity  seemed  laid  upon  me  to  expose  it.  I  made 
a  careful  analysis,  however,  of  the  whole  mass  of  testi- 
mony, to  satisfy  myself  whether  I  ought,  in  any  respect, 
to  qualify  my  own  statements  in  view  of  it.  If  I  had 
been  convicted  of  any  serious  mistake  in  so  important  a 
matter,  even  that  would  have  been  crushing.  I  think 
God  would  have  enabled  me  to  seek  relief  in  humble  and 
frank  avowal  of  my  fault,  and  in  zealous  efforts  to  atone 
for  it.  But,  on  the  most  careful  examination,  I  can  see 
no  reason  why  I  should  prefer  the  Professor's  memory  to 
my  own,  and  I  am  strengthened  in  every  impression 
which  I  entertained  when  I  gave  my  brief  unstudied  note 
to  a  Deputy  of  my  diocese.  It  was  given  with  no  idea, 
at  the  time,  that  it  would  ever  be  of  any  importance,  ex- 
cept to  the  individual  who  wanted  it,  for  his  personal 
assurance  only,  in  private  intercourse  with  his  friends. 
Though  I  afterward  permitted  its  more  open  use,  in  case 
of  necessity,  as  to  which  I  was  quite  willing  that  my 
honored  friend  should  be  the  judge,  such  was  its  history 
and  original  design.  Thoroughly  canvassed  as  it  has 
been,  I  have  no  grounds  for  suspecting  that  it  contains 
any  considerable  innccui  acy  as  to  fact,  while  its  essential 
truth  has  been  circumstantially  established  by  the  Pro- 
fessor himself  and  his  youthfui  compurgators. 

I  have  observed  that  the  Professor  having  gratuit- 


25 

ously  raised  an  "  issue  of  veracity,"  the  first  question  to 
be  settled  was  as  to  what  passed  between  himself  and  the 
Bishop  of  Western  New  York,  "  at  that  visitation."  He 
indignantly  denied  the  account  the  Bishop  had  given  of 
it ;  what,  then,  ought  the  Bishop  to  have  said  ?  I  have 
already  shown  that  if  the  Bishop  had  said  the  verij  words 
tvhich  the  Professor  stvears  he  should  have  said — they  would 
have  made  a  worse  case  for  the  Professor  than  that  of 
which  he  complains ;  they  are  more  flatly  contradicted 
by  his  (the  Professor's)  statement  to  the  H<)use.  But  as 
there  were  only  three  other  persons  present  at  that  visi- 
tation it  is  evident  that  these  three  are  the  only  compe- 
tent witnesses  in  the  cas.\  Till  these  three  are  heard 
from,  other  testimony  is  irrelevant.  All  this  "  sworn 
evidence  "  goes  for  nothing,  as  to  the  matter  in  hand — 
however  valuable  in  other  respects,  and  it  is  most  valu- 
able to  me — unless,  first  and  foremost,  we  find  the  Pro- 
fessor calling  in  his  colleagues,  who  were  present  at  the 
visitation,  and  asking  them  what  ivas  said.  How  simple 
and  inoffensive  this  process!  Why  did  he  not  resort  to 
iti  If  I  was  wrong  I  should  have  been  convicted — not 
of  intentional,  but  of  very  culpable  error.  Their  testimony 
must  settle  the  question  whether  my  recollections  or  his 
own  may  be  best  relied  upon.  But  instead  of  doing  this,  he 
raises  a  gratuitous  "  issue  of  veracity."  He  then  makes 
out  his  (  wn  story,  swears  to  it,  and  next  looks  around  for 
support  among  his  pupils  and  personal  friends.  Of  the 
three  competent  witnesses,  we  find  onlij  one  testifying. 
He,  the  youngest  and  a  sympathizer,  gives  only  a  general 
approbation,  which  means  nothing  unless  cross-examina- 
tion can  elicit  particular  and  specific  testimony.  The 
other  two  witnesses,  grave  divines  and  experienced  pro- 
fessors, are  conspicuouslij  absent.  Why  so'?  Either  they 
were  summoned  or  they  were  not.  If  they  gave  testi- 
mony, let  us  have  it.  If  they  did  not,  was  it  because  they 
were  not  asked  ?     That  of  itself  is  a  cognovit^  and  finds  its 


26 

only  motive  in  conscious  fears  that  their  specific  testi- 
mony might  prove  inconvenient  and  damaging.  Now, 
the  rule  is,  "  against  an  elder  receive  not  an  accusation 
but  before  two  or  three  witnessesJ^  He  brings  but  one 
against  a  Bishop,  and  that  one  says  only  just  enough  to 
make  his  testimon}^  worthless.  It  is  general  approval, 
and  it  may  mean  everything  or  nothing.  If  the  former, 
then  it  covers  the  whole  of  the  Professor's  affidavit.  But, 
have  a  care  !  We  have  seen  how  full}'  the  Professor  him- 
self has  contradicted  that.  Besides,  Mr,  Welsh,  who  gave 
himself  the  trouble  to  consult  the  two  witnesses  who 
were  left  out  by  the  negative,  testimony  stronglj'  corrobor- 
ating my  own.  I  have  preferred  to  rely  entirely  on  Pro- 
fessor, finds  their  positive,  as  well  as  their  the  Professor's 
own  publications,  however,  and  it  is  chiefly  from  them 
that  I  have  made  up  my  mind  as  to  the  unassailable  posi- 
tion of  those  Deputies  whose  vote  w^as  equivalent  to  a 
want  of  confidence.  Until  the  two  witnesses,  whom  the 
Professor  has  not  consulted,  are  found  to  agree  in  con- 
firming his  recollections,  I  am  not  even  touched ;  and 
until  he  and  his  young  allies  can  agree  as  to  which  of 
their  various  and  manifold  stories  I  ought  to  prefer  to  my 
own  convictions,  I  do  not  see  why  I  should  give  myself 
any  personal  concern  in  the  premises. 

Yet,  it  must  not  be  forgotten,  since  the  matter  has 
been  forced  upon  our  attention,  that  the  Professor,  now 
permanent  Dean  of  the  Seminary,  has  furnished  us'  with 
"  sworn  evidence"  affecting  his  own  statements,  in  which 
the  following  particulars  are  of  vast  significance.  He 
proves : 

(1)  That  instead  of  an  accidental  call,  it  was  a  case 
of  lodging  in  the  Seminary  for  two  nights  ; 

(2)  That  instead  of  his  having  nothing  to  do  with  it, 
the  Professor,  as  acting  Dean,  had  formally  and  officially 
consented  lo  the  ^'  Father's  "  being  thus  entertained  in 
the  Seminary; 


27 

(3)  That  instead  of  knowing  nothing  about  it  in  time^ 
he  was  applied  to  sometime  before  hand,  to  accommodate 
the  "  Father"  with  the  use  of  a  lecture-room] 

(4)  Tliat  though  it  was  said  that  this  room  was  to 
be  used  for  social  purposes,  the  Professor,  by  his  prudence 
in  refusing  it,  betrayed  his  conviction  that  this  was  said 
in  an  non-natural  sense  ; 

(5)  That,  the  Professor  having  refused  the  use  of  a 
lecture-room,  with  full  time  and  warning  to  prohibit  sueh 
performances  in  awj  room,  the  student  who  had  consulted 
with  him  felt  himself  at  full  liberty,  nevertlieless,  to 
arrange  for  the  social  meeting  in  his  own  room, ; 

(6)  That,  ?iQ,Q,ordim^y/' every  st?tdejit  in  the  Se7ni- 
nary  was  invited ;" 

(7)  That,  instead  of  a  eall,  which  those  in  neighbor- 
ing rooms  "  chanced  to  hear  of,  these  invited  guests  came 
as  such,  and  heard,  jiot  a  cojiversatzon,  but  a  lecture ; 

(^8)  That  in  this  Lecture  the  subject  of  the  Holy 
Eucharist  was  introduced,  a  proposition  with  respect  to  it 
maintained,  and  certain  objections  met  and  answered  by 
an  anecdote  of  the  miraculous  efficacy  of  the  Sacrament, 
in  a  particular  case  ; 

(9)  That  another  Lecture  was  formally  delivered; 
that  some  of  the  students  took  notes ;  that  religious  exer- 
cises attended  these  performances  ; 

(10)  That  these  Lectures  were  notorious  in  the  Sem- 
inary, so  much  so  that  one  of  the  professors  formally 
warned  the  students  against  such  teachings,  and  was 
derided  for  his  pains  ; 

(11)  That  those  who  were  active  in  these  insubordi- 
nate proceedings,  so  far  from  being  reprimanded  by  the 
Professor,  as  acting  Dean,  seem  to  have  enjoyed  his 
special  countenance,  as  they  are  evidently  still  distin- 
guished by  a  high  degree  of  his  favor ; 

(12)  That  such  being  some  of  the  essential  facts  of 
the  case,  nothing  of  the  sort  was  communicated  to  the  House ^ 


28 

in  reply  to  its  anxious  inquiries ;  that  the  House  proceed- 
ed to  its  vote  under  the  most  solemn  assurances  that 
iiotking  of  this  kind  had  occur7'cd,  and  that  the  Pro- 
fessor was  as  ignorant  of  anything  to  justif}-  my  reference 
to  such  facts,  as  was  the  great  majority  of  the  Deputies 
themselves. 

Here,  then,  if  I  make  a  pause,  it  is  out  of  simple 
kindness  and  good  will.  I  have  not  treated  this  matter 
as  a  personal  grievance,  nor  with  any  design  to- place  in 
a  strong  light  all  that  might  justly  be  exposed.  It  is  the 
privilege  of  a  Bishop  to  suffer  wrong  rather  than  to  inflict 
it;  and  in  all  cases  to  be  forbearing,  considerate,  and 
fatherly.  I  throw  aside,  then,  a  painful  comparison 
which  I  have  made  of  oath  with  oath,  and  page  with  page, 
of  this  "  sworn  evidence."  I  do  not  wish  to  make  inde- 
lible the  stain  with  which  so  many  young  clergymen 
have  defiled  their  hands^  nor  to  point  out  how  little  they 
seem  to  understand  of  the  peril  of  that  "  vain  and  rash 
swearing"  which  our  Thirty-ninth  Article  condemns.  By 
a  sort  of  poetic  Nemesis,  the  very  Journal  which  records 
the  election  of  the  new  Dean  of  the  Seminary,  informs  us, 
in  a  very  significant  report  of  the  Examining  Committee, 
that  "  the  study  of  the  true  principles  for  determining  cases 
of  conscience"  is  entirdij  neglected  in  the  Seminary.*  So 
we  might  infer.  The  Professor  and  his  young  pupils 
seem  quite  ignorant  of  the  f^xct  that  even  among  heathen 
moralists  gratuitous  oaths  were  held  to  be  degrading.  It 
is  an  impeachment  of  one's  own  credibility  to  offer  an 
"  oath  for  confirmation,"  so  long  as  no  magistrate  requires 
it.  Noblemen  have  enjoyed  the  privilege  of  testifying 
"  upon  their  honor,"  and  clergymen  "  upon  their  sacred 
Orders."  Lawyers  object  to  all  extra-judicial  swearing 
as  affording  a  convenient  pretext  to  the  worst  characters, 
who  can  thus  get  up  the  appearance  of  a  case  without 
subjecting  themselves  to  cross-examination.     Must  I  re- 


*  See  Journal  of  1875.  p.  746. 


29 

hearse  all  this  when  any  expositor  of  the  Thirty-nine 
Articles  is  supposed  to  convey  such  knowledge  to  our 
merest  tyros  in  Theology  1  Yet  here  is  a  pamphlet  filled 
with  ''sworn  evidence"  the  most  contradictory  and  self- 
refuting,  and  the  person  who  is  responsible  for  it  is  the 
person  selected  by  seventy-seven  Trustees,  out  of  four 
hundred,  to  form  the  manners,  and  mould  the  characters 
of  our  future  clergy,  as  permanent  Dean  of  our  General 
Theological  Seminary. 

By  another  coincidence  of  poetical  justice,  the  Pro- 
fessor's collection  of  unfortunate  oaths  was  supplemented 
by  an  appendix  of  note-worthy  character.  It  contains  the 
testimony  of  a  young  graduate  of  the  Seminary,  who, 
being  in  England,  and  more  anxious  to  come  to  the  aid 
of  the  Professor  than  to  inform  himself  of  the  real  state 
of  the  case,  volunteered  an  affidavit  which  has  proved  of 
great  service  to  me  and  of  none  at  all  to  his  friend.  In 
this  attempt,  however,  he  seems  to  have  had  his  atten- 
tion turned,  for  the  first  time,  to  one  of  those  "  true  prin- 
ciples for  determining  cases  of  conscience,"  which  are  so 
much  neglected  in  the  Seminary.  He  found  that  the 
majesty  of  English  law  regards  such  oaths  as  profane  • 
and  so  this  intending  swearer  was  only  able  to  get  in  a 
"  declaration."  It  is  made,  under  an  amendment  to  re- 
peated Acts  of  Parliament,  "for  the  more  effectual  aboli- 
tion of  oaths  and  affirmations, and  to  substitute 

declarations  in  lieu  thereof,  and  for  the  more  entire  suppres- 
sion of  voluntary  and  extra  judicial  affidavits,  and  to  make 
other  provisions  for  the  abolition  of  unnecessary  oaths. ^^ 
The  Professor  prints  his  friend's  "  Declaration,"  under 
this  legal  title,*  every  word  of  which  brands  shame  upon 
his  whole  pamphlet.  This  fact  lends  further  countenance 
to  the  excuse  I  have  found  for  him,  as  nothing  but  con- 
fusion of  mind  can  account  for  such  self-exposure  and 
practical  fatuity. 


*  See  his  Appendix,  No.  1. 


30 

I  close  by  directing  him  and  the  young  brethren 
whom  he  has  so  seriously  compromised,  to  one  of  those 
''  true  principles  for  determining  cases  of  'conscience," 
which  seems,  indeed,  to  have  been  "  entirely  neglected  " 
in  their  education  It  is  not  found  in  the  impure  pages 
of  Liguorian  casuistry,  which  might  seem  to  have  sug- 
gested the  greater  part  of  their  testimony  ;  but  in  a  "  neg- 
lected "  book  called  the  Bible ;  and  it  is  as  follows  (see 
Eccles.  V.  2-6) :  "Be  not  rash  with  thy  mouth,  and  let 
not  thine  heart  be  hasty  to  utter  anything  before  God  ;  . 
neither  say  thou  before  the  angel  that  it  was  an  error ; 
wherefore  should  God  be  angry  at  thy  voice,  and  destroy 
the  work  of  thine  hands  ?" 

Truly  yours, 

A.  Cleveland  Coxe, 

Bishop  of  Western  New  York. 
Sept.  2,  1875. 


DR.  SEYMOUR'S   REPIA'  TO  BISHOP  COXE. 

Frof/i  the  ChiircJniiaii,  Septciiibcr  "^.bf/i,  1875. 

To  THE  Editor  of  the  Churchman  : 

It  is  with  inexpressible  grief  that  I  have 
read  in  your  paper  the  recent  letters  of  the  Bishop  of 
Western  New  York,  making  a  fresh  and  vindictive 
assault  upon  me.  I  would  not  trouble  you  or  your 
readers'  with  a  reply,  were  the  writer  not  a  Bishop  in  the 
Church  of  God.  His  office  gives  weight  to  his  utter- 
ances, and  hence  one  is  forced  to  notice  what  otherwise 
he  would  treat  with  silent  indifference.  Let  me  begin 
by  bespeaking  for  the  Bishop  the  generous  and  merciful 
consideration  of  your  readers  and  the  Church  at  large. 
He  is  the  victim  of  a  craze  now,  as  he  has  been  before. 
This  must  be  so,  or  he  would  not  have  been  guilty,  within 
the  past  year,  of  repeated  acts  of  injustice  and  outrage 


^1 

toward  me,  which  all  honorable  men  must  condemn,  and 
his  own  conscience  and  heart  in  calm  moments  would  not 
approve.  In  no  other  way  can  one  account,  for  instance, 
in  a  manner  consistent  with  the  preservation  of  the  Bis- 
hop's character  as  a  Christian  man,  for  his  course  during 
the  last  General  Convention.  From  rough  notes,  or  from 
recollection  merely,  of  a  desultory  conversation  which 
took  place  more  than  a  year  before,  he  framed  what  he 
considered  to  be  very  serious  charges  against  a  Presbyter 
of  the  Church — charges  which  he  knew  would  be  regard- 
ed, amid  the  excitement  which  then  prevailed,  as  very 
damaging  to  him  at  a  momentous  crisis  in  his  life.  And 
these  charges,  of  the  truth  of  which  he  was  not  certain, 
and  which  have  since  been  proved  to  be  false,  he  sent  in, 
through  a  Delegate,  to  the  House  of  Deputies,  to  be  used 
against  that  Presbyter  in  secret  session,  where  the 
accused  was  not  present.  He  did  this  when  a  brief 
interview  with  the  Presbyter,  whom  he  was  clandestinely 
assailing,  would  have  satisfied  him  of  the  groundlessness 
of  his  assertions,  and  have  saved  him  from  doing  what 
has  proved  to  be  a  great  wrong.  Even  had  these  charges 
been  true,  the  Bishop  of  Western  New  York  had  his  own. 
House  in  which  to  prefer  them,  and  where  he  would 
have  enjoyed  the  same  protection,  in  the  absence  of  the 
party  whom  he  was  assailing,  as  sheltered  him  in  the 
secret  session  of  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies. 
The  question  has  been  asked  again  and  again^  why 
the  Bishop  was  guilty  of  a  breach  of  privilege  and  pro- 
priety, in  intruding,  during  a  debate,  his  accusations  and 
opinions  before  a  body  of  which  he  was  not  a  member ; 
and  when  he,  as  a  member  of  the  House  of  Bishops,  had 
his  own  legitimate  sphere  in  which  to  wield  his  influence 
and  make  known  his  views.  He  has  answered  it,  I  am 
credibly  informed,  by  saying  that  the  House  of  Bishops 
would  undoubtedly  have  confirmed  me,  and  that  I  must 
by  all  means  be  crushed,  or  words  to  that  effect.     What 


32 

else  would  account  for  such  conduct  on  the  part  of  a 
Christian  man  and  a  Bishop,  but  the  solution  which  I 
have  suggested — that  he  is  the  victim  of  a  delusion  7 
His  suspicions  and  prejudices  and  passsions  have  unbal- 
anced his  judgment  on  this  one  subject,  and  turned  his 
head.  Or  again  :  What  else  can  account  for  his  conduct 
now,  in  gratuitously  assailing  me,  after  well  nigh  a  year's 
profound  silence,  in  the  two  letters  which  have  recently 
appeared  in  the  columns  of  The  Ohurchman  ?  He  first 
gratuitously  and  wantonly  assailed  me  before  the  House 
of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies,  in  October,  1874,  with 
charges  which  were  unfounded  in  truth.  To  these  I 
calmly  and  quietly  replied,  in  the  early  part  of  the  next 
month,  November.  The  Bishop,  however^  preserves  the 
strictest  silence  for  nearly  a  year,  when  he,  in  his  own 
selected  time,  and  for  reasons  best  known  to  himself, 
bursts  forth  with  the  reaffirmation  of  his  old  charges,  and 
with  fresh  ones  of  even  greater  gravity  and  heinousness. 
The  thunderbolt  falls  from  a  clear  sky.  Surely  the 
Bishop  is  the  victim  of  a  craze,  and  is  not  to  be  regarded 
in  this  matter  as  ordinary  men  would  be^  or  he,  under 
ordinary  circumstances,  would  be.  I  am  not  without 
hope,  too,  that  he  will,  when  the  excitement  and  heat 
under  which  he  now  labors  have  passed,  come  to  a  better 
mind,  and  endeavor,  in  his  own  eccentric  way,  to  make 
me  the  amende  which  is  due  to  me.  I  am  the  more  en- 
couraged to  take  this  favorable  view  of  the  future,  from 
the  fact  that  the  Bishop  seems  to  have  relented  in  the 
case  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  DeKoven,  and  to  be  awakening  to  a 
just  appreciation  of  his  noble  character.  In  a  letter  of 
the  Bishop  of  Western  New  York,  now  before  me,  written 
in  the  Spring  of  1874,  he  speaks  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  DeKoven 
as  guilty  of  "  Jesuit  practices,"  and  implies  that  he  is 
leagued  with  others,  in  England  and  this  country,  "  to 
destroy  the  Reformation  and  Jesuitize  the  Church." 
Now,  in  the  Autumn  of  1875,  the   Bishop,  referring  to 


38 

the  same  Rev.  Dr.  DeKoven,  says  of  him:  "He  was  a 
man  entitled  to  respect,  and  encompassed  with  personal 
friends.  He  was,  moreover,  believed  to  be  above  trickery 
and  deception.  Nobody  accused  him  of  '  paltering"  in  a 
double  sense.'  His  position  was  unambiguous,  avowed, 
and  defiant.  He  was  a  man  whom  all  parties  would  have 
welcomed  to  the  Episcopate,  had  not  his  worse  than 
doubtful  theology  made  it  impossible  for  us  to  reconcile 
his  confirmation  with  fidelity  to  the  Church's  law  and 
doctrine."  After  this  radical  change  in  the  Bishop's  es- 
timate of  the  Rev.  Dr.  DeKoven's  character,  there  is 
some  little  hope  for  even  me.  Be  that  as  it  may,  how- 
ever, I  am  satisfied  that  the  Bishop  deserves  in  such 
escapades  as  the  present,  rather  pity  than  censure.  Our 
only  grief  is  that,  where  his  eccentricities  are  not  known, 
his  unfortunate  victims  may  suffer,  and  the  Church,  of 
which  he  is  a  Bishop,  must  be  scandalized. 

I  do  not  propose  to  follow  the  Bishop  through  his 
two  letters,  occupying  more  than  twelve  columns  of  The 
Churchman.  It  would  be  tedious  and  unnecessary.  It 
will  be  sufficient  for  me  to  relate,  briefly,  my  connection 
with  the  Rev.  Mr.  Grafton's  visit  to  the  Seminary,  before  . 
and  after  his  coming  ;  the  circumstances  under  which  I 
gave  my  answers,  which  were  read  in  the  House  of 
Deputies ;  to  print  these  answers  and  my  affidavit,  to- 
gether with  the  letters  of  the  Bishop  of  Western  New 
York,  in  order  that  the  public  may  make  the  comparison 
which  the  Bishop  suggests ;  to  endeavor  to  bring  the 
Bishop  back  to  the  real  issue,  from  which  he  tries  to 
escape;  and  then,  with  a  few  words  of  explanation,  to 
close  the  correspondence. 

The  Rev.  Mr.  Grafton  visited  the  Seminary  in  the 
month  of  December,  1872.  Prior  to  his  coming,  Mr. 
Torbert,  a  student,  requested  of  me,  as  acting  Dean,  per- 
mission to  entertain  him.  This  he  did  in  accordance 
with  the   regulations  of  the  Seminary,  which  prescribe 


34 

that  no  student  shall  allow  any  one  to  share  his  room 
with  him,  as  a  guest,  without  the  special  permission  of 
the  Dean,  or  in  his  absence,  of  a  resident  Professor.  Some 
days  after  this  request  was  made  by  Mr.  Torbert,  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Grafton  paid  his  anticipated  visit  to  the  Semi- 
nary, remained  two  nights,  Tuesday  and  Wednesday,  and 
on  Thursday,  about  one  or  two  o'clock,  p.  m.,  called  upon 
nie  at  my  house,  and  after  a  brief  interview,  left.  Up  to 
the  hour  the  Rev.  Mr.  Grafton  called,  I  was  not  aware 
that  he  was  in  the  city,  much  less  m  the  Seminary. 
Nothing  was  said  by  him  about  the  length  of  his  visit,  or 
his  intercourse  with  the  students.  Subsequently,  after 
the  lapse  of  about  a  week,  I  learned  that  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Grafton  had,  at  the  request  of  a  number  of  the  students, 
delivered  an  informal  lecture  or  discourse,  precisely  in 
the  way  in  which  I  stated  in  my  answers,  which  were 
read  in  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies.  The 
gentleman  who  gave  me  the  information  was  present  on 
only  one  of  the  evenings,  and  referred  to  but  one,  and  up 
to  October,  1874,  after  my  answers  to  the  House  of  De- 
puties were  submitted,  and  my  case  was  decided,  I  sup- 
posed that  the  Rev.  Mr.  Grafton's  lectures  had  been 
delivered  on  one  evening,  and  that  his  stay  had  not  ex- 
ceeded one  night.  Subsequently,  after  October  22d^  1874, 
I  was  led  to  make  minute  inquiries  into  the  matter,  in 
order  to  meet  the  charges  of  tlie  Bishop  of  Western  New 
York,  and  then,  for  the  first  time,  I  became  acquainted 
with  the  additional  information  which  I  introduced  into 
my  affidavit  of  November  6th.  When  I  learned  in  the 
Winter  of  1872,  what  the  Rev.  Mr.  Grafton  had  done,  I 
remonstrated  with  Mr.  Torbert,  and  pointed  out  to  him 
that  it  was  an  impropriety  for  any  one,  unless  with  the 
knowledge  and  consent  of  the  Dean  and  Faculty,  to  deli- 
ver lectures  or  give  instruction  in  the  Seminary ;  that 
unless  such  a  rule  were  laid  down  and  enforced,  serious 
abuses  might  arise.     He  acknowledged  the  truth  of  this, 


35 

and  promised  that  the  thing  should  not  occur  again.  Now, 
it  may  be  said  that  I  did  not  go  far  enough,  that  I  ought 
to  have  convened  the  students,  and  in  a  public  and  very 
emphatic  way  have  rebuked  them  ;  nay,  perhaps,  invoked 
the  action  of  the  Faculty,  suspended  the  young  men-in  a, 
body,  notified  their  Bishops,  and  created  a  great  stir  and 
excitement  throughout  the  entire  Church.  It  may  be  so, 
but  this  is  not  my  way  of  governing  young  men,  and  at 
the  most,  it  was  only  an  error  of  judgment.  My  mode  of 
dealing  with  the  matter  was  eflfectual.  The  offence  has 
never  occurred  since,  nor  would  it  have  been  likely  to 
occur  ever  again,  even  though  the  Bishop  of  Western 
New  York  had  not  made  it  the  subject  of  grave,  and,  as 
it  turned  out,  false  accusations  against  me,  in  thie  recent 
session  of  the  House  of  Deputies. 

Let  it  then  be  distinctly  understood,  that  on  Decem- 
ber 10th  and  11th,  1872,  I  was  not  aware  that  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Grafton  was  in  the  city  of  New  York  and  in  the  Sem- 
inary. On  one  of  these  evenings,  I  was  at  the  house  of 
my  aged  father,  whom  I  was  accustomed  to  visit  twice  a 
week,  on  Tuesdays  and  Fridays;  on  the  second  I  was  en- 
gaged up  to  a  late  hour  in  a  distant  part  of  the  city,  in 
arranging  for  the  transfer  of  a  student  to  St  Stephen's 
College,  Annandale.  On  the  12th  of  December,  Thurs- 
day, I  first  became  aware  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Grafton's  pre- 
sence in  the  cit}^,  when,  just  on  the  eve  of  departure,  he 
kindly  called  upon  me.  In  the  course  of  the  next  week, 
I  was  told  that  he  had  met  a  number  of  the  students  in- 
formally, and  given  them  an  account  of  Cowley  and  its 
work.  When  Bishop  Coxe  visited  the  Seminary  in  the 
Spring  of  1873,  I  knew  all  this  ;  and  to  this  extent  and 
no  further  my  information  went,  when  I  made  the  answers 
which  were  read  in  the  House  of  Deputies  on  the  21st 
and  22d  of  October,  1874.  After  that  date  I  learned 
on  inquiry  additional  details  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Grafton's 
visit,  and  heard  for  the  first  time  an  outline  of  his  dis- 


36 

courses,  from  notes  which  one  of  the  students  who  was 
present  had  made  at  the  time.  Some  portion  of  the  ad- 
ditional information  which  I  had  thus  gained,  I  naturally 
and  properly  embodied  in  my  affidavit,  which  was  pre- 
pared and  sworn  to  on  the  6th  day  of  November,  1874. 
The  differences  between  my  answers  to  the  Deputies  and 
m.}^  affidavit  will  be  found  to  be  simply  in  the  way  of  ad- 
ditional information  which  I  had  gained  from  others,  and 
the  additions  thus  made  will  be  found,  on  examination,  in 
no  respect  to  conflict  with  the  previous  statements.  As  re- 
gards what  I  adduce  as  of  my  own  personal  knowledge, 
there  is  not  the  slightest  discrepancy  from  first  to  last. 

It  may  be  asked  why  I  did  not  give  the  subject  full 
investigation,  and  spread  the  results  before  the  House  of 
Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies.  My  answer  is,  because  I  had 
no  time  to  do  so,  and  this  brings  me  to  the  second  point 
of  which  I  proposed  to  speak :  the  circumstances  under 
which  my  answers  were  prepared  which  were  laid  before 
the  House  of  Deputies. 

On  Wednesday,  the  21st  of  October,  after  two  o'clock 
p.  M.,  just  as  I  was  leaving  my  house  to  go  to  the  House 
of  Mercy,  of  which  I  am  Chaplain,  for  the  purpose  of  hold- 
ing my  usual  week-day  service,  the  door-bell  rang 
violently,  and  on  my  opening  it  a  Clerical  Deputy,  in 
great  excitement,  and  covered  with  perspiration,  pre- 
sented himself,  and  handed  me  a  slip  of  paper,  and  bade 
me  read  what  was  on  it,  and  make  my  answer  with  the 
utmost  despatch,  or  else  he  would  not  be  able  to  get  back 
to  the  House  of  Deputies  before  the  final  vote  in  my  case 
would  be  taken.  It  was  fixed  for  four  o'clock  of  that  day. 
The  Deputy  informed  me  that  just  before  the  hour  of  re- 
cess, at  one  or  half-past  one  o'clock,  an  entirely  new 
phase  had  been  put  upon  the  question  of  my  confirmation 
by  charges  which  had  been  made  against  me  in  a  letter 
which  had  been  sent  to  the  Lower  House,  and  which,  at 
almost  the  last  moment,  was  read  by  an  Honorable  Lay 


37 

Deputy  from  the  Diocese  of  Virginia.  The  drift  and  pur- 
port of  the  charges,  he  added,  are  on  that  paper ;  what 
is  your  response  7  The  slip  of  paper  has  doubtless  been 
destroyed ;  but,  as  nearly  as  I  can  recall  the  words,  they 
were  these :  "  It  is  charged  that  a  Priest  of  the  C.  B.  S. 
was  allowed,  with  the  knowledge  and  consent  of  Professor 
Seymour,  to  lecture  to  the  students  in  a  private  room  in 
the  Seminary.  Is  that  true  V  I  had  not  the  time  to  look 
for  another  piece  of  paper,  such  was  the  haste  of  the  De- 
puty. I  simply  reversed  the  original  slip,  which  I  held 
in  my  hand,  and  wrote  my  brief  reply  as  best  I  could  on 
the  other  side.  I  knew  at  once  who  the  accused  was. 
Had  I  been  charged  with  murder  or  burglary,  I  could  not 
have  been  more  surprised,  since  I  was  as  guiltless  of  the 
offence  of  which  Bishop  Coxe  accused  me,  as  I  was  of 
those  crimes. 

My  reply  was  prepared  in  reference  to  the  question 
propounded,  and  were  that  question  in  existence  it  would 
be  seen  that  my  response  was  a  legitimate  and  truthful 
answer.  The  gravamen  of  the  Bishop's  charges  was,  as  I 
undertood  it  then  and  understand  it  now,  not  that  lec- 
tures were  delivered,  but  that  they  were  delivered  with 
my  knowledge  and  consent.  My  imagined  complicity  with 
the  lectures  constituted  my  offence.  Hence,  in  the  Bis- 
hop's letter,  the  words,  "with  his  knowledge  and  con- 
sent," are  italicized.  It  was  to  this  point,  the  substance 
of  the  charge,  that  my  attention  was  directed,  and  I  en- 
deavored to  make  my  reply  meet  just  this  allegation. 
Had  I  been  allowed  time  even  to  read  over  my  answer, 
so  hastily  written,  I  would  probably  have  seen  that  the 
word  "  knew,"  in  the  connection  in  which  I  used  it,  was 
ambiguous,  and  I  would  have  added  "at  the  time,"  or 
something  to  that  effect,  in  order  to  determine  its  mean- 
ing. As  it  was,  however,  I  did  the  best  I  could  under 
the  trying  circumstances.  Nothing  was  further  from  my 
mind  than  the  idea  of  deception.     The  Deputy  snatched 


38 

the  paper  from  my  hand,  and  ran  from  the  Seminary,  in 
order  to  reach  St.  John's  Chapel,  where  the  House  of  De- 
puties was  sitting,  full  two  miles  away,  before  the  final 
vote  was  taken.  He  succeeded  in  doing  this ;  but  only 
after  considerable  opposition  was  he  allowed  to  read  my 
replies. 

The  hour  for  taking  the  vote  in  my  case  had  been 
fixed  by  resolution,  previously  adopted,  at/owr  o'clock  on 
Wednesday,  the  21st  of  October,  the  day  on  which  the 
Hon.  Judge  Sheffey,  of  Virginia,  at  one  or  half-past  one 
o'clock,  p.  M.,  read  Bishop  Coxe's  letter  (which  I  am  in- 
formed  he  had  in   his  possession  several  days),  for  the 
first  time  to  the  House.    After  the  reading  of  my  answers 
to  the  charges  of  Bishop  Coxe,  the  Clerical  and  Lay  De- 
puties kindly  postponed  action  until  the  next  day,  Thurs- 
day,   at   three   o'clock.      On    the    intervening   evening, 
Wednesday,  several  Clerical  Deputies,  in  a  spirit  of  true, 
fraternal  regard,  waited  upon  me,  and  presented  in  writ- 
ing, on  their  own  responsibility,  certain  questions  which 
they  had  prepared.     In  the  meantime,  I  had  endeavored 
to  recall,  as  far  as  I  was  able,  the  circumstances  connect- 
ed  with  the  Rev.   Mr    Grafton's  visit  to  the  Seminary 
nearly  two  years  before.     The  result  of  my  efforts  is  em- 
bodied in  my  answers,  which  were  read  to  the  House  of 
Deputies  on  the   following  day  (Thursday),  and  which 
will  be  found   in  my  second  letter.     To  one  point  I  ad- 
dressed myself  in  these  answers,  namely,  to  make  it  per- 
fectly clear  that  no  one,  with  vay  knowledge  and  consent, 
had  ever  been  permitted  to  deliver  lectures  or  discourses, 
or  give  instruction  to  the  students  in  private.     In  refer- 
ence to  this  matter,  which  falls  within  my  own  personal 
knowledge,  I  was  entirely  sure,  since  it  has  been,  from 
the  outset  of  my  connection  with  the  Seminary,  a  fixed 
principle  in  my  administration  to  allow  nothing  that  is 
clandestine  or  concealed.     All  that  I  say  besides,  in  my 
replies,  as  to  the  incidents  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Grafton's  visit, 


39 

was  drawn  from  information  given  to  me  by  others  many 
months  before.  I  was  not  present  at  the  lectures,  nor 
did  I  know  personally  anything  about  them.  It  is  possi- 
ble for  one  to  be  misinformed ;  it  is  also  possible  for  one, 
after  the  lapse  of  nearly  two  years,  not  to  bear  in  mind 
all  the  minute  details  of  a  narrative  which  was  told  to 
him.  If  any  one  thinks,  with  the  Bishop  of  Western  New 
York,  that  in  these  answers,  the  inaccuracies  as  to  details 
which  I  learned  from  others,  and  tried  to  recall  to  the 
best  of  my  ability,  after  a  long  interval,  constitute  "  a 
suggestio  falsi  iindi  a  pregnant  suppre^sio  veri^^  he  is  welcome 
to  his  opinion.  In  regard  to  all  such  persons  I  would 
only  say,  that  I  sincerely  hope  that  they  may  never  be 
judged  by  the  same  rule.  Let  it  be  remembered,  that 
when  all  these  answers  were  prepared  by  me,  I  had  not 
seen  the  letter  of  Bishop  Coxe.  The  nearest  I  could  get 
to  the  indictment  preferred  against  me  by  a  Right  Rev- 
erend Father  in  God,  before  a  secret  session  of  the  House 
of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies,  from  which  I  was  excluded, 
was  what  others  thought  it  contained.  I  saw  Bishop 
Coxe's  letters,  for  the  first  time,  after  my  confirmation 
was  refused. 

A  few  words  must  be  devoted  to  the  C.  B.  S.,  about 
which  the  Bishop  of  Western  New  York  says  so  much, 
and  the  Rev.  Mr.  Grafton's  connection  with  it.  In  the 
first  place,  I  am  not  now,  nor  ever  have  been,  a  member 
of  this  association.  I  was  approached  upon  the  subject 
once,  and  only  once,  in  1864,  and  declined  to  join  it,  sim- 
ply because  it  did  not  commend  itself  to  my  approval.  I 
never  saw  but  one  of  its  papers,  and  that  was  after  the 
close  of  the  General  Convention  in  November  last.  I 
have  never  yet  seen  a  list  of  its  members.  Strange  as  it 
may  seem,  I  had  not  read  or  heard  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Graf- 
ton's officiating  and  preaching  at  a  service  of  the  C.  B.  S., 
until  I  saw  the  account  when  reproduced  in  the  daily 
edition  of  The  Churchman.     In  my  answers,  written  in 


40 

such  terrible  haste,  they  are  the  first  two  in  the  series, 
and  under  great  pressure  the^C.  B.  S.  and  its  concerns 
were  not  prominent  in  my  mind  ;  the  Rev.  Mr.  Grafton's 
name  had  not  yet  been  mentioned.  I  knew  with  certain- 
ty, that  never,  with  my  knowledge  and  consent,  had  any 
one  been  permitted  to  lecture  in  private  to  the  students, 
and,  therefore,  I  could  safely  say  that  no  priest  of  the  C. 
B,  S.  had  ever  been  so  allowed.  I  did  not  know  then 
whether  the  Rev.  Mr.  Grafton  was  a  member  of  the  C.  B. 
S.  or  not,  nor  did  it  matter,  since  I  had  never  permitted 
him,  nor  invited  him,  nor  introduced  him,  to  lecture  to 
or  indoctrinate  the  students,  and,  therefore,  the  prolix 
remarks  of  the  Bishop  of  Western  New  York  on  that  sub- 
ject are  entirely  irrelevant. 

It  remains  for  me,  in  my  next  letter,  simply  to  pre- 
sent the  questions  which  were  addressed  to  me  during 
the  secret  session  of  the  House  of  Deputies,  and  my 
answers  to  the  same  ;  the  letters  of  Bishop  Coxe,  con- 
taining his  charges  and  my  affidavit,  in  order  that  my 
brethren  of  the  clergy  and  laity  throughout  the  Church, 
may  make  the  comparison  which  the  Bishop  suggests, 
and  judge  between  him  and  me,  with  all  the  original 
documents  before  them  to  enable  them  to  come  to  a 
righteous  decision ;  and  then  to  conclude  with  a  few  ex- 
planatory remarks.  Praying  that  God  may  overrule  this 
unhappy  discussion,  which  the  Bishop  of  Western  New 
York  has  re-opened,  to  the  good  of  the  Church,  and  may 
bring  my  assailant  to  a  better  mind,  so  that  he  may  lay 
aside  his  fierce  anger  toward  me,  and  allow  me  to  prove 
by  act,  as  I  now  assure  him  by  word,  that  I  can  bury  and 
forget  the  past,  and  treat  him  with  the  reverence  and  re- 
spect, and  love  even,  which  are  due  from  a  son  to  a 
Father  in  the  Church  of  God. 

I  am,  very  truly  yours, 

George  F.  Seymour. 
Gen'l  Theol.  Seminary,  Sept.  11,  1875. 


41 


DR.  SEYMOUR'S  REPLY  TO  BISHOP  COXE. 

From  ihe  CJnirchman,  October  2^,  1875. 

To  THE  Editor  of  the  Churchman  : 

I  proceed  now  to  lay  before  your  readers 
my  statements  which  were  read  to  the  House  of  Deputies 
in  response  to  what  I  was  told  were  the  charges  of  Bis- 
hop Coxe ;  the  Bishop's  letters,  which  /  tvas  not  allotved  to 
see  until  the  day  after  my  confirmation  tvas  refused ;  and  my 
affidavit,  drawn  up  and  sworn  to  after  I  had  read  the 
Bishop's  letters,  and  inquired,  with  some  degree  of  mi- 
nuteness, into  the  circumstances  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Grafton's 
visit  to   the    Seminary,   in    December,   1872,  and  about 
which,  up  to  the  time  of  the  reverend  gentleman's  depar- 
ture, I  knew  no  more  than  Bishop  Coxe  himself     I  pro- 
pose, also,  to  add   the  affidavits  of  the  Rev,  Professor 
Hall  and  the  Rev.  Mr.  Grafton.     It  is  a  sad  pity  that  the 
Bishop  did  not  introduce  these  documents  into  his  own 
letters^  in  order  to  make  clear  to  his  readers  the  contra- 
dictions and  folsehoods  which  he  alleges  that  they  con- 
tain, and  which  he  undertakes  to  establish  by  a  plentiful 
use  of  Arabic  numerals.     A  learned  Professor  is  said,  on 
taking  leave  of  a  favorite  pupil,  to  have  given  him,  with 
great  impressiveness,  this  advice :    "  Verify  references," 
and  to  have   repeated  it,  after  the   example  of  Demos- 
thenes, three  times,  in  order  to  add  to  its  force.     The 
probability  of  the  Bishop's  suggestion  being  acted  upon 
by  one  out  of  a  hundred  of  his  readers,  in  looking  up  the 
papers  and  pamphlets  of  a  year  ago,  and  making  a  labori- 
ous comparison,  which  would  be  very  tedious  to  all  but 
experts,  is  vastly  less  than  the  likelihood  of  a  man  or 
woman  verifying  references;  and  who  verifies  references? 
The    Bishop  informs  us   that   he  does   not  exhibit   the 
alleged  contradictions  and  falsehoods,  which    my  state- 
ments would  disclose,  if  they  were  printed  in  parallel 


421 

columns^  out  of  mercy  to  me.  Does  he  believe  this  him- 
self? Was  this  the  reason  1  Well,  then,  I  shall  be  more 
cruel  to  myself  than  the  tender-hearted,  gentle,  loving 
Bishop  of  Western  New  York  is  disposed  to  be,  and 
spread  these  documents,  in  full,  before  the  readers  of  The 
Churchman,  and  I  beg  them,  for  mij  sake,  to  do  what  the 
Bishop  suggests,  read  them  carefully,  and  compare  them, 
and,  taking  into  account  the  circumstances  under  which 
they  were  severally  produced,  answer  to  their  own  con- 
sciences^ not  whether  there  is  any  contradiction  or  false- 
hood, for  no  such  thing  will  appear,  but  whether  there  is 
any  attempt  at  evasion,  or  prevarication  even. 

It  may  be  well  to  explain  here  that,  the  Bishop  of 
Western  New  York  made  his  visitations  to  the  Seminary 
in  the  Autumn  of  1872  and  the  Spring  of  1873,  as  a 
member  of  the  Committee  of  Seven,  appointed  under  a 
resolutio)!  of  the  Bishop  of  North  Carolina,  passed  at  the 
annual  meeting  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  in  June,  1872, 
"to  draught  a  practical  plan  for  the  development  and 
improvement  of  the  Seminary."  In  making  his  visita- 
tions. Bishop  Coxe  announced  that  it  was  his  object  in 
doing  so,  to  gain  information  which  would  aid  him,  and 
his  colleagues,  in  their  labor  of  preparing  the  plan  which 
was  requested  by  the  Trustees.  At  the  visitation  held 
in  the  Autumn  of  1872,  the  Bishop  submitted  a  series  of 
written  questions,  which  were  answered  in  writing.  In 
the  following  Spring,  his  visitation  was  not  formal,  but 
the  interview  was  taken  up  with  a  desultory  conversation 
between  the  Bishop  and  the  Professors  who  were  present. 
Whether  the  Bishop  took  written  notes  of  what  passed, 
or  trusted  entirely  to  his  own  memory,  I  know  not.  If 
he  took  notes,  he  never  submitted  them  to  me,  or  read 
them  to  me,  in  order  to  ascertain  whether  he  had  re- 
ported me  correctly ;  if  he  trusted  to  his  own  memory, 
he  never  intimated  to  me  that  he  had  learned  anything 
which  he  intended  to  treasure  up,  and  when  the  suitable 


43 

opportunity  presented  itself,  produce  against  me,  and 
ask  me  whether  he  was  right  in  his  understanding  of 
what  had  been  said.  We  had  met  together  as  Bishop 
and  presbyters  in  the  Church  of  God,  to  take  counsel 
together  for  the  benefit  of  its  great  theological  school. 
The  Bishop  manifested  toward  me,  on  that  occasion,  I 
thought,  an  inimical  spirit,  but  I  left  the  room^  where  we 
had  been  in  conference,  without  the  most  distant  suspi- 
cion that  the  Right  Rev.  Father  had  drawn  from  what 
had  passed  anything  which  would  jiggravate  the  ill  feel- 
ing which  I  knew  he  entertained  toward  me,  much  less 
which  he  would  formulate  into  charges,  and  present  as 
accusations  against  me  in  the  future  I  was  utterly  un- 
conscious of  his  purpose.  But  the  weapon,  it  seems,  he 
had  forged  and  sharpened  and  kept  in  reserve  for  his  vic- 
tim, to  be  used,  as  he  hoped,  with  fatal  eftect,  when  the 
favorable  opportunity  offered.  That  opportunity  came 
eighteen  months  afterward.  I  was  elected  Bishop  of  Illi- 
nois, and  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  Canons, 
my  papers  came  before  the  two  Houses  of  the  General 
Convention  for  confirmation.  The  popular  mind  had 
been  wrought  up  to  fever  heat  on  the  subject  of  Ritualism, 
and  the  excitement  which  infected  the  masses,  influenced 
more  or  less  the  members  of  the  General  Convention. 
At  once  it  was  determined  to  seize  upon  me,  and  make 
me  the  representative  of  the  odious  and  dreaded  evil, 
and  then  crush  me  for  my  imaginary  offences.  Every 
effort  was  made  to  connect  me  with  extreme  men 
and  ultra  associations ;  and  when  all  these  labors 
were  likely  to  prove  unavailing,  then,  at  the  last 
moment,  the  golden  opportunity,  which  the  Bishop 
of  Western  New  York  had  long  coveted,  was  pre- 
sented, and  was  improved  to  the  utmost.  This  is  the 
Bishop's  account  of  the  matter  :  "  It "  (his  note  to  Judge 
Smith)  "  was  given  with  no  idea  at  the  time  that  it  would 
ever  be  of  any  importance,  except  to  the  individual  who 


44 

wanted  it  for  his  personal  assurance  only,  in  private  in- 
tercourse with  his  friends;  though  I  afterward  permitted  its 
more  open  use  in  case  of  necessity,  as  to  which  I  was  quite 
willing  that  my  honored  friend  should  be  the  judge." 
The  italics  are  mine. 

On  the  seventh  day  of  the  secret  session,  when  every 
resource  to  defeat  my  confirmation  had,  as  was  generally 
supposed,  failed,  and  the  hour  for  taking  the  final  vote, 
which  had  been  previously  fixed  by  resolution  for  four 
o'clock  r.  M.,  was  drawing  near,  then  the  case  of  necessity, 
anticipated  by  Bishop  Coxe,  had,  in  the  judgment  of  his 
honorable  friend,  arrived.  At  one  or  half -past  one  o'clock, 
on  the  day  when  the  final  vote  was  to  be  taken  at  four 
o'clock,  at  a  point  full  two  miles  distant  from  my  house, 
and  without  any  intimation  to  me  that  such  charges 
would  be  preferred  against  me,  the  Hon.  Judge  Sheffey, 
of  Virginia,  as  the  mouth-piece  of  Bishop  Coxe  as  to  the 
charges,  and  the  exponent  of  Bishop  Coxe,  Judge  Smith, 
and  others,  as  to  the  time  chosen  for  producing  it,  read 
the  letter  for  the  first  time,  which  had  been  in  private 
circulation  among  certain  selected  Deputies  for  several 
days.  These  Deputies  doubtless  believed  the  charges  of 
Bishop  Coxe,  and  thought  that  they  were  doing  God  ser- 
vice in  resorting  to  any  method,  even  though  in  cool 
moments  they  would  have  seen  that  it  was  discreditable, 
to  keep  a  dangerous,  if  not  unworthy,  man,  out  of  the 
Episcopate.  Perhaps  their  excitement  and  intense  par- 
tisanship for  the  moment  blinded  their  eyes  to  the  cruelty 
with  which  they  were  treating  me.  Judges,  who  sit 
upon  the  bench,  should  know  at  least  that  the  law  does 
not  condemn  a  man  until  he  is  allowed  an  opportunity  of 
being  heard  on  his  own  behalf,  and  honorable  laymen, 
and  a  Bishop  and  presbyters,  should  not  only  be  just  but 
generous,  and  take  special  pains  to  give  the  party  whom 
they  intend  to  accuse  of  what  they  conceive  to  be  grave 
offences  every  advantage  of  time  and  place,  for  defending 


45 

himself.  These  matters  have  been  now  alluded  to  in 
order,  in  connection  with  what  was  said  in  my  last  letter, 
to  explain  the  circumstances  under  which  the  first  two 
answers  in  the  list  which  follows,  were  given. 

When  the  Clerical  Deputy  presented  himself  after  two 
o'clock^  on  the  day  on  which  the  final  vote  was  to  be 
taken  at  four^  with  the  slip  of  paper  containing  what  was 
believed  to  be  the  substance  of  Bishop  Coxe's  charges 
against  me,  I  was  taken  utterly  by  surprise.  The  only 
thing  which  I  could  recall,  which  could  in  any  way  sug- 
gest such  an  accusation,  was  the  visit  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Graf- 
ton almost  two  years  before^  and  as  I  had  fully  explained 
to  Bishop  Coxe  that  I  had  had  no  connection  whatever 
with  his  talks  with  the  students  on  that  occasion,  I  was 
at  a  loss  to  conjecture  to  what  he  could  possibly  refer.  I 
was  perfectly  certain,  however,  that  I  had  never  allowed 
anyone  to  deliver  lectures,- or  give  instruction  to  the  stu- 
dents in  private,  since  I  had  been  in  charge  of  the  Semi- 
nary, because  I  am,  on  principle,  as  much  opposed  to 
such  an  impropriety  as  Bishop  Coxe,  or  any  one  else, 
could  possibly  be.  The  entire  time  that  the  Deputy  was 
in  my  house  could  not  have  exceeded  eight  minutes  ;  with- 
in that  brief  interval,  I  was  obliged  to  read  the  statement 
on  the  paper  handed  to  me,  and  make  the  replies  which 
follow  as  best  I  could.  The  paper  contained^  as  I  have 
said,  as  nearly  as  I  can  remember,  the  following  words : 
"It  is  charged  that  a  priest  of  the  C.  B.  S.  was  allowed 
with  the  knowledge  and  consent  of  Professor  Seymour, 
to  lecture  to  the  students  in  a  private  room  in  the  Semi- 
nary. Is  that  so?"  My  answers  (see  The  Churchman, 
Daily  Edition,  p.  197,)  are  these : 

"  1.  I  never  allowed  or  knew  of  any  priest  of  the  C.  B.  S.  being 
in  the  Seminary,  or  lecturing  to  the  students  on  any  occasion  what- 
soever, since  I  have  been  in  charge  of  the  Seminary.  I  have  never 
permitted  any  one  to  lecture,  or  address  the  students  in  any  case 
whatsoever,  without  the  consent  of  the  Faculty. 


46 

"  2.  I  also  affirm  that  I  never  permitted  any  one  to  address  the 
students,  or  lecture  to  them  on  any  occasion,  without  the  knowledge 
and  consent  of  the  Faculty,  and  that  if  such  things  have  been  done, 
they  have  occurred  without  niy  knowledge  and  consent,  and  in  case 
I  had  known  them,  would  have  been  prevented  by  me." 

In  the  first  answer,  I  ought  to  have  added,  after  the 
word  "  knew,"  the  words  "  at  the  time,"  or  some  equiva- 
lent expression,  so  that  the  sentence  would  read,  '  or 
knew  at  the  time  of,"  etc.^  in  order  to  make  my  meaning 
perfectly  clear ;  but  I  imagine  that  no  unprejudiced  per- 
son would  misunderstand  the  answer  as  it  now  reads. 
Bishop  Coxe  insists  that  I  ought,  in  these  answers,  to  have 
incorporated  all  that  I  knew  about  the  Rev.  Mr.  Grafton's 
visit,  and  kindred  occurrences,  which  ever  took  place 
within  the  Seminary,  otherwise  I  was  endeavoring  to  de- 
ceive the  Deputies.  In  the  first  place,  I  reply,  that  it 
would  have  been  utterly  impossible  for  me  to  do  so,  since 
I  had  no  time  :  the  eight  minutes  were  entirely  consumed 
in  doing  the  little  which  I  did.  In  the  next  place,  I  rep- 
ly, that  even  had  I  had  the  time,  it  would  not  have  been 
necessary  for  me  to  enter  into  such  particulars,  since  the 
only  point,  which  the  Deputies  were  concerned  to  deter- 
mine, was  whether  I  had  had  any  complicity  with  such 
transactions,  if  they  ever  occurred,  and  when  I  answered 
that  I  had  not,  I  met  directly  and  exhaustively  the  charge 
which  I  understood  had  been  made  against  me  Lastly, 
I  reply,  that,  just  as  soon  as  I  had  the  opportunity,  on 
the  evening  of  the  day  on  which  the  two  answers 
quoted  above  were  given  (Wednesday,  October  21st), 
I  did  tell  the  Deputies  all  that  I  could  then  recall  of 
the  circumstances  of  the  Rev.  Mr  Grafton's  visit,  as  I 
had  up  to  that  time  learned  them  from  others.  I  knew 
no  more  of  those  interviews  at  the  time  when  they  took 
place  than  did  Bishop  Coxe,  or  any  member  of  the  House 
of  Deputies,  that  is,  Jtist  nothing  at  all.  The  sum  and 
substance   of  my  knowledge  of  the  affair,  on  the  night 


47 

of  October  2l8t,  and  up  to  Saturday,  October  24th,  1874, 
when  I  enquired  of  several  of  the  students  as  to  the 
details  of  what  took  place,  is  embodied  in  the  necessarily 
brief  answers  which  follow.  These  are  five  in  number, 
and  complete  my  answers  on  this  subject  (seven  in  all), 
which  were  communicated  to  the  House  of  Deputies  : 

Quest  ions  to  aud  Ansivers  from  Dr.  Seymour  Presented 
by  Dr.  String  fellow. 

"3.  Q.  Did  you  ever  receive  any  gentleman  or  gentlemen  well 
known  either  as  agents  of  the  C.  B.  S.,  or  the  system  it  sustained,  or 
were  any  such  person  or  persons  permitted  by  you  to  lecture  to  the 
students  of  the  Seminary  in  a  private  room  in  (on)  his  or  their 
peculiar  views  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  ? 

"  A.  No  person  or  persons,  male  or  female,  have  ever  been  per- 
mitted by  me  to  deliver  lectures  or  addresses  in  private  or  in  public 
to  the  students,  since  I  have  been  connected  with  the  General 
Theological  Seminary,  without  the  knowledge  and  consent  of  my 
colleagues.  So  far  as  I  can  remember,  the  following  persons  only, 
with  my  knowledge  and  consent,  have  delivered  lectures  or  addresses 
to  the  students,  viz. :  November  1,  1872,  the  Rt  Rev.  A.  C.  Coxe, 
D.D.,  LL.D.,  Bishop  of  Western  New  York;  Lent,  1874,  the  Rev. 
James  Long,  M.A.,  on  India,  of  the  Archdiocese  of  Calcutta,  India, 
two  lectures;  June,  1874,  Professor  Charles  Short,  LL.D.,  on  the 
Vulgate  translation  of  the  Bible,  one  lecture.  The  Bishop  of  New 
York  delivers  each  Winter  lectures  to  his  candidates,  and  to  such 
other  members  of  the  senior  class  as  choose  to  attend. 

"4.  Q.  Did  the  Rev.  Mr.  Grafton,  with  your  consent  and 
knowledge,  ever  lecture  to,  or  address,  the  students  of  the  Seminary 
upon  any  subject,  and  if  so,  upon  what  subject,  and  under  what  cir- 
cumstances ? 

"  A.  He  never  did  with  my  knowledge  and  consent. 

"  5.  Q.  Did  you  confess  or  acknowledge  the  affirmation  of  these 
facts  to  any  person.  Bishop,  priest,  deacon,  or  layman,  as  specified  in 
Question  No.  4 } 

"A.  I  never  did  so  confess  or  acknowledge,  since  such  a  con- 
fession or  acknowledgment  would  have  been  contrary  to  the  truth. 
The  facts  were  simply  these  :  The  Rev.  Mr.  Grafton  on  one  occasion 
called  upon  a  student  at  his  room  in  the  Seminary,  and  while  there 
other  students  in  neighboring  rooms  heard  of  his  presence,  and 
came  in  to  see  him,  and  requested  him  to  tell  them  about  Cowley, 
and  the  plan  and  purpose  of  the  brotherhood  of  which  Mr.  Grafton, 


AS 

is  a  member.  The  Rev.  Mr.  Grafton,  as  I  was  informed  after  the 
occurrence,  had  no  design  when  he  called  of  holding  any  such  con- 
versation;  it  was  simply  accidental.  I  did  not  learn  of  it  until  some 
time  after  it  took  place,  and  I  had  nothing  whatsoever  to  do  with  it. 
All  the  interviews  I  have  ever  had  with  the  Rev.  Mr.  Grafton,  since 
I  have  known  him,  would  not  amount  in  extent  of  time  to  four  hours. 
I  was  introduced  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Grafton  years  ago,  when  he  was 
assistant  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  Wyatt,  of  St.  Paul's  church,  Baltimore,  Md., 
and  have  seen  him  only  occasionally  since. 

"  6.  Q.  Did  any  person.  Bishop,  priest,  deacon,  or  layman,  ever 
challenge  your  acknowledgment  or  confession  to  having  permitted 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Grafton,  or  any  other  person  not  connected  with  the 
Seminary,  to  listen  to  or  address  the  students  .'' 

"A.  I  never  acknowledged  or  confessed  to  having  done  so,  and 
hence,  I  do  not  see  how  any  one  could  ever  have  so  challenged. 

"  7.  Q.  Did  any  person  speak  to  you  upon  the  subject ;  if  so,  who  ? 

"  A.  Yes ;  Bishop  Coxe,  in  a  visitation  which  he  held  in  the 
Seminary  in  the  Winter  or  Spring  of  1873,  inquired  about  the  visit 
of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Grafton,  and  I  gave  him,  in  substance,  the  informa- 
tion which  I  have  submitted  in  my  answers  as  above.  (See  Answer 
5.)  At  that  visitation  the  charge  was  made  that  a  presbyter  had 
been  prowling  about  the  Seminary  for  several  days.  On  inquiry,  I 
found  that  reference  was  made  in  this  allegation  to  a  presbyter  who 
had  come  to  the  Seminary  for  the  purpose  of  being  with  the  mour- 
ners, and  attending  the  funeral  of  the  daughter  of  the  late  Professor 
Seabury,  and  while  in  the  Seminary  was  the  guest  of  the  widow  Sea- 
bury,  then  residing  in  the  Seminary  grounds." 

These  answers  were  read  to  the  House  of  Deputies 
on  the  morning  of  Thursday,  October  22,  1874  ;  and  be  it 
remembered,  at  this  time,  and  up  to  Friday  evening, 
October  23d,  the  day  after  my  confirmation  was  refused, 
I  was  not  allowed  to  see  the  letters  of  Bishop  Coxe  con- 
taining my  indictment,  or  obtain  copies  of  them,  although 
I  earnestly  requested  to  be  allowed  access  to  them.  That 
I  received  copies  of  them  as  soon  as  I  did,  was  chiefly 
due  to  the  courtesy  of  Tazewell  Taylor,  Esq.,  of  Virginia, 
to  whom  I  desire  to  return  my  thanks  for  his  kindness. 

The  following  are  the  letters  of  Bishop  Coxe  :  The 
first  was  read,  for  the  first  time,  to  the  House  of  Deputies 
on  Wednesday,  the  21st  of  October,  within  three  hours  of 


'  49 

the  time  originally  fixed  for  taking  the  final  vote ;  it  is 
dated,  New  York,  October  17th ;  the  remaining  two  were 
read  on  Thursday,  the  22d  of  October,  the  day  on  which 
my  confirmation  was  refused  : 

New  York,  October  17,  1874. 
Afy  Dear  Judge  Smith  : 

The  facts  are  substantially  as  they  have  been  reported  to  you. 
I  could  say  many  things  in  favor  of  this  candidate  with  entire  truth, 
and  testimonials  might  be  multiplied  in  his  favor  without  any  dupli- 
city. But  the  whole  truth  would  reveal  another  class  of  facts,  and  I 
suppose  that  Dr.  Seymour  himself  would  not  deny  that,  as  a  Profes- 
sor in  the  Seminary,  he  has  steadfastly  resisted  the  noble  efforts  of 
his  colleagues,  such  as  Drs.  Seabury  and  Vinton,  "who  have  labored 
to  maintain  the  doctrine  of  this  Church,  respecting  the  Holy  Eucha- 
rist, and  the  provisions  of  the  Rubric  for  its  solemn  celebration,  pure 
and  undefiled. 

These  things  became  known  to  me  in  the  discharge  of  official 
duty  as  a  "  Visitor  "  and  a  member  of  a  Committee,  and  I  regret  to 
say  that  the  learned  Professor  was  forced  to  confess  to  me  that,  ivith 
his  knoivledge  and  consent^  a  reverend  gentleman,  well  known  as  an 
active  agent  of  the  C.  B.  S.,  or  of  the  system  which  it  sustains,  was 
permitted  to  lecture  to  students  of  the  Seminary,  in  a  private  room, 
on  his  peculiar  views  of  the  "  Holy  Eucharist." 

It  is  with  extreme  regret  that  I  mention  these  facts  which  I  have 
desired  an  opportunity  of  stating  in  the  Board  of  Trustees  of  the 
Seminary,  and  only  there.  As  you  well  know,  however,  the  impossi- 
bility of  assembling  that  Board,  or  any  fair  proportion  of  them,  has 
operated  to  render  the  investigation  of  facts  an  impossibility  for  many 
years.  The  facts  ought  to  be  known,  however,  and  the  Church 
must  be  awakened  to  her  responsibilities  in  such  momentous  con- 
cerns. 

Faithfully  yours, 
(Signed)  A.  Cleveland  Coxe, 

Bishop  of  Western  New  York. 
The  Hon.  Judge  Smith. 

Mr.  William  Welsh,  of  Pennsylvania,  on  Thursday, 
October  22d,  introduced  the  following  correspondence  : 

New  York,  October  31,  1874. 
My  Dear  Bishop  : 

By  a  remarkable  Providence,  a  letter  of  yours  dated  October  4, 
1873,  came  into  my  possession  this  evening.     I  enclose  it  to  you,  and 


50 

ask  permission  to  use  it  at  my  discretion.  If  }^ou  ever  conversed  with 
any  of  your  students  about  the  visits  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Grafton  to  the 
Seminary,  or  have  any  particulars  of  such  visits,  and  the  knowledge 
that  the   Rev.  Dr.  Seymour  had  of   them,  pray  oblige   me  with   such 

particulars. 

Yours,  very  sincerely, 

W.  Welsh. 
To  the  Rt.  Rev.  A.  C.  Coxe,  D.D. 

New  York,  October  21,  1874. 
Afy  Dear  Mr.   Welsh  : 

I  do  not  feel  at  liberty  to  refuse  you  the  use  of  my  letter  of 
October  4,  1873,  the  existence  of  which  I  had  quite  forgotten.  But 
consult  with  my  friend  Judge  Smith,  who  knows  the  extreme  reluc- 
tance with  which  I  have  permitted  my  testimony  to  be  used  in  your 
discussions. 

I  might  have  made  my  statement  much  stronger  and  more  de- 
tailed ;  for  the  case  was  a  very  gross  abuse  of  power.  We  do  not 
send  our  candidates  to  the  Seminary  to  be  instructed  by  emissaries 
from  foreign  societies ;  but  when  I  expressed  my  surprise  to  Dr.  Sey- 
mour that  a  volunteer  Professor  had  been  introduced  by  him  within 
the  walls  of  the  Seminary,  he  defended  himself  on  the  general  ground 
that  the  person  was  "  a  presbyter  of  the  Church." 

In  reply  to  another  question,  I  must  add  that  in  examining  one 
of  my  candidates,  who  reluctantly  admitted  his  knowledge  of  the 
facts,  I  found  that  he  had  been  present  at  one  of  these  volunteer  lec- 
tures, in  which  extravagant  and  false  views  of  the  Holy  Eucharist 
were  inculcated.  Nothing  but  a  very  extraordinary  duplicity  can 
put  any  construction  on  these  facts,  which  good  men  can  accept  as 
satisfactory. 

Faithfully  yours, 

A.  Cleveland  Coxe,       , 

Bishop  of  Western  New  York. 
Wm.  Welsh,  Esq. 

Buffalo,  October  4,  1873. 
My  Dear  Dr.  Forbes  : 

Nothing  could  be  more  opportune — nothing  more  ad  rem — than 
the  publication,  at  this  moment.,  with  historical  notes,  of  this  very  val- 
uable document.  I  send  it  by  the  same  post  that  takes  this,  having 
obtained  Professor  Seabury's  permission  to  hold  it,  against  some  such 
emergency,  which  I  foresaw  must  arise  before  our  reform  work  is  much 
further  advanced.  I  was  sorry  I  could  not  see  you  when  I  was  last 
in  town ;  but  things  have  gone  on  w^ell,  in  some  respects ,  and  this 
explosion  of  the  "  C.  B.  S."  will  work  mucji  good. 


51 

I  think  historical  notes  are  needed,  and  the  whole  should  be 
prefaced  by  an  extract  from  that  document,  showing  the  nature  of 
their  intrigues,  and  how  they  glory  in  stultifying  the  discipline  and 
destroying  the  official  relations  of  the  Dean  to  the  students. 

I  have  the  present  (acting)  Dean's  own  acknowledgment  that  he, 
permitted  "  Father  (xrafton"  to  visit  and  indoctrinate  the  students 
last  Winter. 

If  you  don't  publish  the  accompanying  document,  please  give  it 
back  to  Professor  Seabury ;  only  asking  him  to  consider  my  permis- 
sion to  make  further  use  of  it  as  not  withdrawn.  We  may  have  to 
convince  the  whole  Church  of  the  impossibility  of  working  the  Semi- 
nary as  it  is  now  going  on. 

Faithfully  yours, 

A.  Cleveland  Coxe, 

Bishop  of  Western  New  York. 
The  Rev.  Dr.  Forbes,  etc. 

On  the  Saturday  following  the  decision  as  to  my  case 
in  the  House  of  Deputies,  I  gathered  about  me  a  number 
of  the  students,  who  had  been  present  on  the  occasion  of 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Grafton's  visit  to  the  Seminary,  in  Decem- 
ber, 187^,  and  learned  from  them  certain  particulars 
which  I  had  not  before  known,  as  for  instance  that  his 
sojourn  extended  to  two  nights  instead  of  owe,  and  I  then 
heard  for  the  first  time  an  outline  of  the  talks  which  he 
had  had  with  the  students.  Some  of  this  information, 
which  I  had  thus  obtained,  I  embodied  in  my  affidavit  of 
November  6th,  which  will  be  found  below,  together  with 
the  affidavits  of  my  colleague,  Professor  Hall,  and  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Grafton. 

Dr.  Scyino2ii''s  Affidavit  in  Reply  to  Dr.  Coxes  Charge. 

It  is  not  true  that  I  ever  '''  introduced"  Father  Grafton  as  "a 
volunteer  Professor"  "within,  the  walls  of  the  Seminary," — having 
never  introduced  or  even  invited  him  to  the  Seminary  in  any  capa- 
city. 

It  is  not  true  that  I  "permitted"  Father  Grafton  "  to  visit  and 
indoctrinate  the  students  last  Winter,"  or  at  any  other  time,  having 
never  been  asked  for,  and  having  never  given,  any  ])erniission  of  the 
kind. 


52 

It  is  not  true  that  he  was  "  permitted"  by  me  "  to  lecture  to  stu- 
dents of  the  Seminary  in  a  private  room,''  as  if  I  were  ashamed  or  afraid 
to  ask  him  to  do  it  openly.  No  person  has  ever  been  permitted  by  me 
to  lecture  to  the  students  except  openly  in  the  Chapel  or  Library, 
and  with  the  knowledge  of  the  Faculty. 

It  is  not  true  \\\dX\  qv&x'''' confessed'"  \.o  or  ''acknowledged,'" 
any  such  action  as  is  denied  in  the  above  three  paragraphs ;  for  I 
have  never  thought  it  honest  to  confess  or  acknowledge  what  I  never 
had  done. 

It  is  not  true  that  I  was  "'forced"  to  confess  it:  for  no  com- 
pulsion can  well  draw  from  me,  to  my  own  prejudice,  a  false  confes- 
sion of  a  thing  which  I  never  had  done.  Every  statement  ever  made 
by  me  at  any  time  on  this  subject,  has  been  freely  and  voluntarily 
made. 

It  is  not  true  that  tlie  Bishop  has  "  my  own  acknowledgment 
that  I  permitted  '  Father  Grafton'  to  visit  and  indoctrinate"  as  afore- 
said ;  for  I  never  made  any  acknowledgment  of  the  sort. 

It  is  not  true  that  Father  Grafton  lectured  at  the  Seminary 
"  with  my  knotvledge  and  consent"  for  I  knew  nothing  of  his  lecturing 
until  some  days  after  it  was  all  over,  and  never  gave  any  consent 
thereto. 

It  is  not  true  that  the  object  of  Father  Grafton's  lectures  was 
to  inculcate  " ///V  peculiar  views  of  the  Holy  Eucharist,'"  for  the 
students  who  were  present  testify  that  there  was  only  one  incidental 
allusion  to  the  Holy  Eucharist  during  the  two  evenings. 

It  is  not  true  that,  in  this  incidental  allusion,  "  extravagant 
and  false  views  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  were  inculcated,"  unless  it  be 
"  extravagant  and  false  "  to  say  that  the  benefit  received  in  the  Holy 
Communion  will  be  in  proportion  to  the  intensity  of  the  faith  of  the 
devout  receiver,  conducing  sometimes  even  to  the  recovery  from 
bodily  disease.  This  remark  was  made  in  disproof  of  the  assertion 
of  Romanists  that  sacramental  grace  among  us  is  without  efficacy. 
The  explanation  here  given  is  drawn  from  notes  of  Father  Grafton's 
lectures,  taken  at  the  time  by  one  of  the  students  present,  but  which 
I  never  saw  or  heard  of  until  after  my  Confirmation  was  defeated. 

It  is  not  true  that  in  this  matter  there  was  "  a  very  gross 
abuse  of  power"  on  my  part;  for  there  was  no  exercise  of  power  at 
all,  nor  any  knowledge,  at  the  time,  on  which  any  power  could  be 
exercised. 

It  is  not  True  that  Bishop  Coxe  obtained  his  version  of  the 
matter  when  he  was  in  the  Seminary  as  a  "  Visitor  "  of  the  same  in 
the  Spring  of  1873.  For  at  that  Visitation,  the  moment  the  fact  of 
Father  Grafton's  lectures  was  mentioned,  I  stated  to  him,  in  terms 


53 

too  strong  and  clear  to  permit  the  possibility  of  mistake,  that  those 
lectures  were  delivered  without  my  knowledge  or  consc?it,  and  that  if  I 
had  known  of  them  in  time  /  should  certainly  have  prohibited  them. 
The  Bishop  then  asked  how  such  a  man  was  allowed  to  set  foot  upon 
the  Seminary  grounds  at  all ;  and  used  very  harsh  language  touching 
Father  Grafton,  saying  that  I  ought  to  have  "  taken  him  by  the  neck 
and  marched  him  off  the  grounds,"  or  words  to  that  effect.  It  was 
in  reply  to  this  denial  of  a  right  even  to  visit  a  student  whom  he 
happened  to  know,  that  some  things  were  said,  which  have  been 
altogether  misapplied.  It  should  be  remembered  that  the  Seminary 
students  are  almost  all  college  graduates  ;  and  that  the  Seminary 
course  corresponds  to  a  post-graduate  course.  No  American  college 
undertakes  to  prevent  students  from  ever  receiving  a  friend  as  a 
visitor  in  their  private  rooms,  unless  previous  permission  has  been 
received  from  the  President.  In  a  post-graduate  course  such  a 
severity  of  exclusion  would  not  be  submitted  to  for  a  moment,  and 
ought  not  to  be,  by  any  body  of  American  young  men.  It  would  be 
more  absurd,  if  possible,  to  require  it  of  young  men  preparing  for  the 
Holy  Ministry  than  of  those  preparing  for  any  other  profession,  such  as 
the  Law  or  Medicine.  It  has  never,  at  any  time,  been  attempted  in 
the  General  Theological  Seminary,  since  its  foundation  to  the  pre- 
sent day.  And  when  the  Bishop  stated  that  it  was  my  duty  to  eject 
Father  Grafton  summarily  by  physical  force,  I  ventured  to  remind 
him  that  the  Rev.  Father  Grafton  was  a  Presbyter  of  the  Church,  in 
good  standing,  that  he  was  second  to  no  man  in  the  Church  or  out 
of  It  in  all  that  appertains  to  personal  character,  social  position  or 
holiness  of  life;  and  that  every  respectable  person — Bishop,  priest, 
deacon  or  layman — had  the  free  entree  to  visit  his  friends  among  the 
students,  as  in  every  other  American  Seminary,  without  obtaining 
special  permission  for  each  special  visit.  Th's  was  the  only  connec- 
tion in  which  anything  was  said  of  Father  Grafton's  right  ;is  "a 
Presbyter  of  the  Church." 

I  would  add  here  that,  such  extemporized  private  meetings 
among  the  students,  though  rare,  have  not  been  unprecedented. 
Some  years  ago,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Breck  found  himself  beset  by  a  crowd 
of  young  men  in  the  room  of  a  student  whom  he  was  visiting,  and 
they  persuaded  him  to  relate  the  history  of  Nashota,  though  the 
Uean  and  Professors  knew  nothing  of  it  until  some  days  after.  Still 
later,  a  similar  thing  took  place  during  a  visit  by  Bishop  Tozer ;  and 
on  neither  occasion  was  any  fault  found  by  the  Dean  or  Faculty, 
though  no  permission  had  been  asked  or  given. 

It  is  not  true  that  I  have  "steadfastly  resisted  the  noble 
efforts  of  my  colleagues      ...     to  maintain  the  doctrine  of  this 


54 

Church  respecting  the  Holy  Eucharist."  This  construction  of 
the  course  which  I  pursued  in  opposing  an  entirel)^  novel,  des- 
potic, an  un-American  policy  of  iiiscipUne^  was  energetically  dis- 
claimed by  me  at  the  beginning,  was  reiterated  by  me  at  every 
stage  of  our  unhappy  controversy  on  the  subject,  and  was  finally 
abandoned  by  the  very  colleagues  who  made  it,  when,  in  the  pre- 
sence of  the  Bishops  as  Visitors,  they  signed  their  names  to  a  declar- 
ation that  what  they  had  done  "  was  not  intended  to  impeach  the 
general  conduct  and  teaching  of  Dr.  Seymour,  either  as  a  Professor 
of  the  Seminary,  or  as  a  Presbyter  of  the  Church." 

//  7nay  be  true  that  Bishop  Coxe  has  "  desired  an  opportunity 
of  stating  in  the  Board  of  Trustees,  and  only  there,"  his  version  of 
the  Grafton  incident.  But  he  has  been  present  at  all  the  three  meet- 
ings of  the  Board  held  since  his  visitation,  and  has  never  given  the 
slightest  evidence  of  his  desire,  by  word  or  deed. 

It  is  now  left  to  all  unprejudiced  and  candid  persons,  to  consi- 
der the  above,  together  with  the  sworn  evidence  which  follows,  and 
then  say  whether,  in  regard  to  my  acts,  there  be  any  foundation  for 
Bishop  Coxe's  assertion  that  "  nothing  but  a  very  extraordinary 
duplicity  can  put  any  construction  on  these  facts,  which  good  men 
can  accept  as  satisfactory." 

George  F.  Seymour. 
Sworn  to  before  me,  the  <Jth  day  of  Nove  iiber,  1874. 

O.  P.  Smith, 
Notary  Public,  New  York  County. 

The  Rev.  Professor  HaWs  Aficiavit. 

"  I,  Randall  Cooke  Hall,  a  Presbyter  of  the  Diocese  of  New 
York,  and  a  Professor  in  the  General  Theological  Seminary,  was 
present  at  the  visitation  held  by  Bishop  Coxe  in  the  Spring  of  1873, 
referred  to  by  Professor  Seymour  in  his  above  affidavit,  and  I  hereby 
testify  under  oath  that,  to  the  best  of  my  recollection,  knowledge,  and 
belief,  Professor  Seymour's  statement  of  what  took  place  on  that 
occasion  is  substantially  correct. 

Randall  Cooke  Hall. 
Sworn  to  before  me,  the  6th  day  of  November,  1874. 

O.  P.  Smith, 
Notary  Public,  New  York  County. " 

The  Rev.  Mr.  Grafton's  Affidavit. 

"  I,  Charles  C.  Grafton,  of  Boston,  Massachusetts,  Presbyter 
Rector  of  the  Church  of  the  Advent  in  that  City,  on  oath  say : 


55 

I  have  been  informed  that  the  Rev.  Dr.  Seymour,  acting  Dean 
of  the  General  Theological  Seminary,  New  York,  has  been  charged 
with  inviting  or  permitting  me  to  deliver,  or  in  some  way  counten- 
ancing me  in  the  delivery  of  a  lecture  or  address  on  the  subject  of  the 
Holy  Eucharist,  or  on  the  Confraternity  of  the  Blessed  Sacrament, 
in  private,  to  the  students  of  the  Seminary.  I  hereby  declare  this 
to  be  untrue. 

I  would  further  say  that,  the  only  visits  I  have  ever  made  to  the 
Seminary,  since  Dr.  Seymour's  connection  with  it  as  Dean  or  Profes- 
sor, are  the  following :  When  I  was  in  this  country  for  a  few  weeks 
in  1867,  I  spent  two  evenings  in  a  friend's  room  in  the  Seminary. 
Dr.  Seymour  was  not  Dean,  and  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with 
my  visits  by  invitation  or  otherwise.  I  talked  with  some  of  the  stu- 
dents who  came  in  to  see  me  on  the  Religious  Life,  and  said  nothing 
concerning  the  Holy  Communion.  I  never  learned  from  any  one 
that  my  visit  was  objectionable  to  any  of  the  Faculty. 

I  was  there  again  in  1872,  on  my  return  to  this  country  from 
England,  under  the  following  circumstances :  Having  occasion  to  be 
in  New  York  while  my  brother's  house  was  closed,  I  was  asked  by 
a  student  whom  I  had  invited  to  become  one  of  my  curates,  and  who 
was  considering  the  matter,  to  come  and  occupy,  for  a  night  or  two, 
a  vacant  bed-room  that  was  at  his  disposal,  his  room-mate  being 
absent.  I  did  so,  and  quite  informally,  and  without  any  previous 
arrangement  or  plan  on  my  part,  several  of  the  students  came  in 
(some  invited  by  him,  others  at  their  own  motion) ;  and,  at  their 
request,  I  talked  to  them  on  the  Spiritual  Life  and  its  temptations. 
I  believe  I  said  something  afterward  agalinst  the  claims  of  the  Roman 
Church,  and  I  may  have  answered  a  question  about  the  Holy  Com- 
munion.    I  have  forgotten  what. 

I  am  the  better  able  to  recall  the  subject  of  the  evening's  topic, 
because  I  stated  it  to  the  students  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Semi- 
nary at  Cambridge,  Mass.,  in  the  presence  of  one  of  the  Professors, 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Wharton,  when  I  visited  that  Institution  and  addressed 
the  students,  at  his  invitation  and  in  his  presence.  I  have  no  reason 
whatever  to  believe  that  Dr.  Seymour  had  any  knowledge  of  this  in- 
terview, in  my  friend's  room,  with  the  students. 

My  acquaintance  with  Professor  Seymour  is  very  slight;  and  on 
the  one  or  two  occasions  when  we  have  met,  I  have  never  mentioned  to 
him  the  fact  that  I  had  an  interview,  such  as  I  have  described,  with 
the  students,  for  I  never  supposed  it  a  matter  of  importance. 

Since  1872  I  have  been  at  the  Seminary  but  twice,  each  time  on 
private  business  only,  and  on  neither  occasion  having  ^ny  conference 


56 

with  any  of  the  students  on  religious  matters.  These  are  all  the 
visits  I  have  made  to  the  Seminary. 

I  have  spoken  of  visits  to  the  Seminary.  It  may  be  proper  to 
add  that  I. have  never  had  any  conference  with  any  of  the  students 
away  from  the  Seminary,  by  the  invitation,  permission,  or  procure- 
ment, directly  or  indirectly,  of  Dr.  Seymour. 

I  will  further  state  that,  although  a  member  of  the  Confraternity 
of  the  Blessed  Sacrament  when  residing  in  England,  I  gave  up  all 
active  connection  with  it  on  returning  to  this  country,  and  left  it, 
declining,  on  this  ground,  an  invitation  extended  to  me  by  the  Con- 
fraternity here  to  join  it ;  and  on  no*  occasion  have  I  talked  to  the 
students  concerning  this  Society,  its  organization,  workings,  or  belief. 

Charles  C.  Grafton. 

Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts,  Suffolk  County  :  At 
Boston,  in  said  county,  this  6th  day  of  November,  A.  D.  1874,  per- 
sonally appeared  the  Rev.  Charles  C.  Grafton,  and  made  solemn 
oath  that  the  foregoing  affidavit,  by  him  subscribed,  is  true,  before 

me. 

[6'm/.]  N.  Austin  Parks, 

Notary  Public." 

In  addition  to  all  this  I  submit  the  following  letter 
from  my  honored  friend,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Burgess,  of  Spring- 
field, Mass.,  which  he  kindly  sent  to  me  in  response  to 
an  inquiry  which  I  addressed  to  him  on  the  subject  of 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Grafton's  visit,  as  I  learned  that  he  was 
accidentally  present,  at  the  time,  on  the  Seminary  grounds. 
This  letter  has  not  yet  appeared  in  print,  and  deserves 
the  special  attention  of  all  who  desire  to  reach  a  de- 
cision as  to  the  issue  of  fact  between  Bishop  Coxe  and 
myself 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Burgess  s  Letter. 

"  In  the  early  part  of  the  Winter  of  1872,  I  was  at  the  General 
Seminary  ;  I  met  in  the  Hall  of  the  Western  Building  a  near  relative, 
at  that  time  a  student  in  the  Seminary.  After  some  remarks  he  said, 
'Whom  do  you  think  I  have  just  seen?'  I  said,  'Whom.?'  He 
replied,  '  Father  Grafton,  of  the  Advent,  Boston.'  I  said,  '  Has  he 
come  here  to  lecture  at  the  request  of  the  Dean  or  Faculty .?  '  He 
replied,  '  Oh,  no,  he  is  making  a  little  visit,  and  a  few  of  us  have  been 
talking  with  him  and  listening  to  him.'  I  said,  '  I  hope  he  is  not 
presenting  strange  ideas  about  the  Eucharist,  or  recommending  un- 


51 

usual  or  fanciful  ways  while  at  service.'  He  replied,  'Oh,  no,  he  has 
been  telling  us  about  the  Fathers,  and  their  plans  for  ])reaching  and 
doing  good;  he  has  not  mentioned  the  Eucharist  at  all.'  I  said 
something  as  caution  about  the  Confraternity  of  the  Blessed  Sacra- 
ment, and  the  importance  of  getting  doctrine  from  the  appointed  pro- 
fessors, and  the  reply  was,  '  Nothing  has  been  said  about  the  Con- 
fraternity, and  the  address  has  been  conversational  and  very  practical, 
tending  to  help  us  to  greater  faithfulness  and  purity ;  you  or  any  one 
might  properly  come  and  say  all  that  he  has  said.' 

The  idea,  too,  was  received  by  me  very  clearly  that  Mr.  Grafton 
was  at  the  Seminary,  as  I  was,  on  a  visit  to  one  or  more  students,  and 
not  at  the  request  of  the  Dean  or  any  Professor.  Where  I  have  men- 
tioned language  as  used  by  myself  or  the  student,  as  above,  I  believe 
that  I  have  recalled  very  nearly  the  words.  Witness  my  hand  at 
Springfield,  Mass.,  the  17th  day  of  March,  a.d.,  1875. 

(Signed)       '          Alexander  Burgess, 

The  charges  of  Bishop  Coxe,  if  they  had  any  drift 
and  purpose,  amounted  to  this:  that  I  had  invited,  and 
introduced,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Grafton  to  lecture  to  the  stu- 
dents in  a  private  room  in  the  Seminary,  and  that  with 
my  knowledge  and  consent  he  had  done  so.  That  I 
should  have  known  of  the  transaction,  after  it  took  place, 
in  no  way  commits  me  to  complicity  with  it,  any  more 
than  it  commits  my  colleagues,  or  any  one  else.  The 
Bishop  tries  to  escape  from  the  awful  position  in  which 
he  finds  himself:  he  intimates  that,  after  all,  it  is  only  a 
question  of  accuracy  and  fidelity  of  memory  between 
himself  and  me,  and  that  he  prefers  to  trust  his  own 
memory  rather  than  mine.  I  have  no  doubt  he  tells  the 
honest  truth  when  he  says  that  he  so  prefers  ;  but,  un- 
fortunately for  him,  that  was  not  the  issue  which  he 
raised  before  the  House  of  Deputies  ;  in  his  letters  written 
deliberately  and  spontaneously,  and  intruded  before  a 
body  with  whose  deliberations  he  had  no  right  to  inter- 
fere, he  volunteered,  among  others,  these  positive  accu- 
sations, without  any  qualification  or  limitation,  namely, 
that  I  had  permitted,  invited,  and  introduced  the  Rev. 


68 

Mr.  Grafton  ta  lecture  in  a  private  room  to  the  students. 
There  is  no  intimation  that  such  assertions  rest  upon  the 
writer's  recollection  merely  of  what  occurred  more  than 
eighteen  months  before,  unsupported  by  any  corrobora- 
tive evidence.  Every  one  would  suppose,  when  a  man 
of  any  character  and  position  in  the  community  made 
such  charges  against  a  fellow-man,  behind  his  back,  in  a 
secret  session  of  a  body  which  was  weighing  that  man's 
fate  in  the  balance,  at  a  very  important  crisis  in  his  life 
— any  one  would  suppose,  I  say,  that  under  such  circum- 
stances, the  self-appointed  accuser  would  be  able,  in  the 
most  convincing  and  satisfactory  manner,  to  prove  his 
charges.  But  no,  the  Bishop  had  not  one  particle  of 
evidence  to  adduce  in  support  of  these  positive  assertions 
at  the  time  he  made  them,  and  now,  after  the  lapse  of  a 
year,  he  breaks  forth  again,  and  in  the  face  of  demonstra- 
tion against  him,  he  repeats  his  charges,  and  suggests 
that,  even  if  they  be  not  true,  it  is  of  no  consequence,  it 
is  a  mere  question  of  words,  an  issue  as  to  whether  his 
memory  is  more  to  be  depended  upon  than  mine. 

Fortimately  it  is  not  such  an  issue,  even  if  we  allow 
the  Bishop  to  have  his  own  way  in  the  matter.  For  con- 
sider what  follows,  if  the  Bishop's  memory  be  correct  ; 
why  nothing  less  than  this :  that  I  confessed  to  a  charge 
which  I  knew  was  false,  and  which  was  damaging  to  my- 
self, and  which  I  knew,  in  the  Bishop's  hands,  would  be 
used  by  him  to  do  me  all  the  harm  which  he  could  pos- 
sibly accomplish.  Now  be  it  observed,  a  man  may  be 
forced  to  confess  an  unwelcome  trutli^  which  tells  against 
himself;  but  it  is  scarcely  within  the  limits  of  belief  that 
any  one  in  his  senses  would  be  compelled,  by  anything 
short  of  bodily  torture,  to  acknowledge  a  faUehood^  which 
was  personally  injurious ;  yet  such  must  have  been  the 
case  with  me,  if  the  Bishop's  memory  is  correct  This 
would  go  to  establish  a  charge,  which  the  Bishop  suggests 
against  me  in  his  letters,  that  I  am  an  idiot. 


59 

Bat  leaving  this  point,  when  we  come  to  the  rela- 
tive value  of  our  respective  memories,  without  wishing 
to  make  any  boast  as  to  my  own,  the  Bishop's  is  notori- 
ously treacherous.  I  can  adduce  abundant  proof  to  sus- 
tain this  statement ;  but  I  will  go  no  further  than  to  say 
that  I  prefer  to  explain  the  Baltimore  scandal  relative  to 
Bishop  (then  Doctor)  Coxe  by  attributing  the  solution, 
however  large  a  demand  it  may  make  upt;n  our  credulity 
and  charity  to  a  very  treacherous  memory.  The  Stand- 
ing Committee  of  the  Diocese  of  Maryland,  however,  at 
the  time  of  the  Doctor's  election  to  the  Bishopric  of 
Western  New  York,  seemed  to  take  a  different  view,  for, 
although  they  agreed  with  him  in  churchmanship,  they 
refused  to  give  their  consent  to  his  Consecration.  And 
then  again,  the  bitter  and  intense  hatred,  which  the  Bis- 
hop of  Western  New  York  has  for  yeai  s  borne  toward 
me,  has  predisposed  him  to  seize  eagerly  upon  anything 
which  he  could  use  to  my  disadvantage ;  to  treasure  it 
up ;  turn  it  over  in  his  mind ;  and  with  his  diseased  ima- 
gination to  exaggerate  it,  and  dress  it  up  to  suit  his  fancy 
until  at  last  he  persuaded  himself  into  the  belief  that  it 
was  really  so.  That  Bishop  Coxe  has  cherished  toward 
me,  for  a  long  time,  fierce  animosity,  is  a  melancholy  fact. 
How  to  account  for  it,  I  am  at  a  loss,  since  we  were  once 
friends,  and  took  sweet  counsel  together.  For  several 
years  we  edited  jointly  the  Churchman's  Calendar.  The 
Bishop,  for  reasons  best  known  to  liimself,  withdrew  him- 
self from  me,  and  has  pursued  me  since  with  relentless 
hate,  watching  his  opportunity  to  do  me  harm,  and  im- 
proving every  occasion,  when  he  could  conveniently  and 
safely  do  so,  to  speak  to  my  disadvantage. 

As  an  illustration  of  the  Bishop's  eagerness  to  dis- 
cover something  which  he  could  employ  to  my  huit,  I 
quote  the  following  extract  from  a  letter  of  a  presbyter, 
now  in  a  position  of  high  trust  and  usefulness,  who  was 
while  in  the  Seminary  a  candidate  from  the  Diocese  of 


60 

Western  New  York,  and  consequently  under  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  Bishop  Coxe.  He  was,  moreover,  ordained  both 
to  the  Diaconate  and  the  Priesthood  by  Bishop  Coxe. 
He  wrote  to  me  spontaneously,  under  date  of  October 
27th,  1874,  as  follows  : 

"  During  my  Seminary  course  Bishop  Coxe  came  several  times  to 
the  Seminary  to  visit  me.  He  never  left  without  trying  to  find  out 
in  some  inquisitorial  way  whether  Dr.  Seymour  did  not  teach  so  and 
so,  etc.  I  always  gave  him  very  indefinite  answers  as  to  the  affairs 
of  the  Seminary.  He  has  tried  several  times  since  I  left  the  Semin- 
ary to  draw  out  of  me  something  which  would  in  some  way  or  other 
fasten  upon  you  the  charge  of  Ritualism,  that  horrid  bugbear.  .  .  . 
I  answered  Bishop  Coxe's  questions  emphatically,  No.  I  told  him 
once  that  Dr.  Seymour  was  the  strongest  opponent  that  the  Church 
of  Rome  had  in  the  Theological  Seminary." 

This  is  a  very  sad  disclosure,  but  it  is  in  perfect  har- 
mony with  much  that  went  before,  and  all  that  has  fol- 
lowed, I  am  grieved,  but  not  surprised,  nor  shall  I  be 
in  the  future  with  any  fresh  displays  of  the  same  malici- 
ous and  vindictive  spirit.  But  to  come  back  to  the  issue 
between  Bishop  Coxe  and  myself  It  is  not,  it  never 
was^  a  question  of  words,  or  of  memory ;  it  is  a  question 
o^  fact  J  oi  stern  ^  sober  fact.  The  Bishop  asserted  as  posi- 
tive facts  and  wrote  them  out  under  his  own  official  sig- 
nature, "  A.  Cleveland  Coxe,  Bishop,  Western  New  York," 
and  caused  them  to  be  presented  as  charges  against  me 
to  the  House  of  Deputies,  that  I  had  done  certain  things. 
These  charges  are  absolutely  and  without  qualification 
untrue.  I  have  demonstrated  this.  The  burden  of  proof 
rested  upon  the  Bishop.  Still  I  felt  that  it  was  due  to 
myself,  and  to  the  institution  of  which  I  was  a  Professor,  to 
go  beyond  what  was  required  of  me,  and  refute,  as  I  for- 
tunately was  able  abundantly  to  do,  the  Bishop's  false 
accusations.  I  have  done  this  so  effectually  as  to  demon- 
strate beyond  the  possibility  of  just  cavil  their  utter 
worthlessness.  Still,  in  the  lace  of  the  clearest  evidence 
which  must  carry  conviction  to  every  unprejudiced  mind, 


61 

after  nearly  a  year's  interval  for  reflectino  and  repen- 
tance, the  Bishop  reaffirms  these  charges,  and  heaps  upon 
me  abuse,  which  in  one  point  of  view  brings  relief,  since  it 
suggests  that  the  Bishop  must  be  beside  himself  with  ex- 
citement, or  he  would  not  be  guilty  of  conduct  so  unwor- 
thy of  a  Christian  gentleman,  not  to  speak  of  a  Bishop  in 
the  Church  of  God.  I  have  not  attempted  to  answer  the 
Bishop's  letters  in  detail,  it  would  take  up  too  much  val- 
uable space  in  The  Churchman,  and  tax  the  patience  of 
its  readers,  beyond  endurance  ;  besides  it  is  not  necessary. 
The  only  matter  of  importance  is  the  issue  of  fact  be- 
tween the  Bishop  of  Western  New  York  and  myself.  I 
am  not  in  the  least  degree  excited.  I  am  not  conscious  to 
myself  of  entertaining  the  slightest  feeling  of  unkindness 
toward  the  Bishop.  I  mean  the  Bishop  no  disrespect 
when  I  say  that  my  only  feeling  toward  him  is  that  of 
unfeigned  pity. 

To  show  the  doubting,  if  there  be  may  such,  that  it 
would  be  a  very  easy  matter  to  refute  the  irrelevant  as- 
sertions of  the  Bishop,  let  me  refer  to  a  specimen  of  his 
logic.  Bishop  Coxe  says  of  me,  commenting  on  my  affi- 
davit, "  by  using  the  title  '  Father,'  he  admitted  the  some- 
what anomalous  position  of  Father  Grafton  among  the 
Presbyters  of  our  Church."  Now  the  facts  are  these,  I 
never  used  the  title,  '^  Father,"  until  with  the  letters  of 
Bishop  Coxe  before  me  I  copied  his  language,  thus  when 
he  charges,  "  that  I  permitted  Father  Grafton,  &c.,"  I 
reply,  quoting  his  words,  "it  is  not  true  that  I  permitted 
Father  Grafton,  &c."  In  my  answers  to  the  Deputies, 
who  waited  upon  me,  I  uniformly  call  the  gentleman,  ^^tJie 
Rev.  Mr.  Grafton.''^  Even  if  I  had  used  the  title  spontan- 
eously, it  would  not  commit  me  to  anything,  any  more 
than  when  Bishop  Coxe  calls  Pius  IX,  "Pope,"  it  com- 
mits him  to  the  doctrine  of  the  supremacy,  or  styles  Arch- 
bishop McClosky,  ^'Cai-dinal,"  it  commits  him  to  the  dog- 
jT^iv  of  i))fii]libilitj  ;  or  wben^one  .^^peaks  pf  the  months  m 


62 


January,  February  March,  &c.,  or  the  days  of  the  week 
as  Sunday,  Monday,  Tuesday,  &c.,  it  commits  him  to  the 
systems  of  heathen  mythology,  which  these  names  re- 
spectively represent. 

Even  the  date  of  the  Bishop's  first  letter  is  a  poetic 
fiction.  At  the  time  the  Bishop  informs  the  readers  of 
The  Churchman,  that  he  wrote  his  letter  September  the 
Firsts  the  issue  of  September  4th,  which  contained  the 
letter,  was  not  only  in  type,  but  actually  in  the  mail  on 
its  way  to  the  subscribers.  Curiously  enough  with  a  false 
date  for  the  beginning  of  his  letters,  and  false  charges 
and  rash  vindictive  assertion  as  their  characteristics 
throughout,  the  Bishop  closes  with  a  dissuasive  against 
Liguorian  casuistry,  and  a  recommendation  of  truth,  and 
sobriety  of  speech.  This  is  indeed  wonderful,  one  is 
forcibly  reminded  of  the  passage  in  the  "  Fortunes  of 
Nigel "  where  King  James  I,  relates  to  George  Herriott 
his  experience,  "  0  Geordie,  Jingling  Geordie,  it  was 
grand  to  hear  Bab}^  Charles  laying  down  the  guilt  of  dis- 
simulation, and  Steenie  lecturing  on  the  turpitude  of  in- 
continence." Were  it  not  so  infinitely  sad,  it  would  be 
equally  grand  to  hear  the  Bishop  of  Western  New  York 
discoursing  on  the  sins  of  prevarication,  slander,  deceit, 
treachery,  falsehood  and  rashness  in  word  and  deed. 
But  I  must  forbear. 

No  one  can  regret  more  than  I  do  the  sad  necessity 
which  has  constrained  me  to  follow  the  Bishop  of  Western 
New  York  before  the  public.  But  let  it  be  remembered 
that  he  spontaneously  and  gratuitously  assailed  me,  in 
the  first  instance,  and  that  I  simply  acted  on  the  defen- 
sive, and  calmly  refuted  his  charges.  Now  again,  after 
the  lapse  of  nearly  a  year,  he  suddenly  breaks  silence, 
and  without  any  provocation  from  me  or  any  one  else ,  so 
far  as  I  am  aware,  he  has  assailed  me  once  more.  Whe- 
ther he  has  been  goaded  on  by  injudicious  sympathizers, 
or  of  his  own  volition  has  indulged  in  this  wanton  attack, 


63 

I  neither  know  nor  care,  the  fact  remains  that  he  has  so 
done,  and  that  he  is  a  Bishop  in  the  Church  of  God. 

In  conckision,  I  wish  to  say  two  things ;  first,  that 
in  reference  to  these  charges  of  Bishop  Coxe  against  me, 
I  challenge  investigation  at  the  hands  of  any  responsible 
body,  provided  such  investigation  is  open  and  public, 
where  I  can  meet  my  accuser  face  to  face.  I  fearlessly 
challenge  such  investigation,  whether  it  be  before  the 
House  of  Bishops,  the  Trustees  of  the  Seminary,  a  Com- 
mission of  Presbyters,  or  the  Civil  Courts.  The  other 
thing  which  I  wish  to  say  is  this  :  that  I  rejoice  that  the 
bitter  experience  of  last  Autumn,  and  of  the  present  time 
has  fallen  upon  me,  rather  than  upon  any  other  Presbyter 
of  the  Church  I  have  been  in  a  better  position,  in  some 
respects,  than  almost  any  one  else  could  have  been^  to 
endure  it ;  and  God  has  given  me  strength  to  bear  my 
trials  with  composure,  and  a  quiet  mind;  and  when  this 
tyranny  is  overpast,  as  soon  it  will  be,  we  shall  doubtless 
all  see  that  it  was  good  for  me  to  be  in  trouble.  If  in  my 
letters  I  have  been  unduly  severe,  in  speaking  of  or  to 
my  Rt.  Rev.  antagonist  (alas !  that  I  should  be  obliged  to 
call  him  so),  my  language  has  misinterpreted  my  heart. 
His  letters  are  of  such  a  character,  that  in  dealing  with 
them,  it  is  difficult  to  avoid  catching  their  spirit ;  and  the 
wrongs,  which  I  have  suffered  at  his  hands,  have  been 
so  wanton  and  cruel,  that  in  thinking  of  them,  or  speak- 
ing of  them,  it  is  not  easy  to  keep  from  being  provoked  j 
yet  in  a  moment  this  feeling  passes,  and  I  can  sincerely 
say,  God  bless  the  Bishop  of  Western  New  York  and  turn 
his  heart. 

Very  respectfully  yours, 

George  F.  Seymour. 
New  York,  Sept  22d,  1875. 


APPENDIX. 


From  the  Chiirchiiian,  Septefnber  llf/i,  1875. 
THE  ILLINOIS  CASE    IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  DEPUTIES. 


LETTER    TO    A    BISHOP. 


To  the  Bishop  of  Western  New  York  : 

Right  Reverend  Sir — I  have  read  your  "  Letter  to 
a  Deputy,"  under  the  above  caption,  in  The  Churchman 
of  September  4,  1875,  the  letter  bearing  date  September 
1,  1875,  and,  therefore,  presumably,  written  for  publica- 
tion, rather  than  for  the  instruction  of  "«  Deputy." 

With  a  Bishop's  letter  to  one  of  his  cure,  I  could  have 
nothing  to  do,  and  could  have  nothing  to  say.  But  a 
Bishop's  letter  in  a  newspaper,  so  furnished  as  to  be  read 
by  the  public,  nearly  as  soon  as  it  could  have  been  read 
by  the  "  Deputy"  to  whom  it  is  addressed,  is  public  pro- 
perty;  and  the  Bishop,  who  so  furnishes  it,  lays  aside  his 
mitre,  and  enters  the  lists  on  equal  terms  with  any  other 
correspondent. 

Suppose  that  everything  that  you  have  written  and 
published  in  your  letter  of  September  1st,  were  true — 
suppose  that  you  could  prove  it  by  the  kind  of  evidence 
that  would  be  received  in  a  court  of  justice ;  why  should 
you,  a  Bishop  of  this  Church,  write  such  a  letter  as  that 
for  publication  ] 

If  you  have  been  assailed  by  the  "  vociferations  of 
abusive  men,"  why  should  you  now,  after  a  year  of  pa- 
tience, break  silence  ?  "If  men  will  not  hear  the  Church," 
which  has  "spoken  once  and  again,"  why  should  you, 
just  now,  on  the  4th  of  September^  1875,  consign  them  to 


65 

the  place  "which  the  Master  has  assigned  them'?"     Can 
it  be  because  the  Illinois  Convention  meets  this  month  ? 

"  Tantcv  ne  irw  in  animis  ccclestibus  V 

But,  even  granting  the  emergency,  could  it  have 
been  your  duty  to  wash  such  dirty  linen,  in  public,  as  you 
claim  to  have  found  7 

I  beg  you  to  review  these  epithets,  quoted  from  your 
own  letter:  "Sinister  practices;" — "astounding  discre- 
pancies in  sworn  evidence ;"  "  wrong  doers"  .  .  seeking 
to  "  darken  counsel  by  words  without  knowledge ;" — 
"  overt  acts  of  a  revolutionary  character ;" — "  free  course 
has  too  long  been  given  to  those  who  despise  govern- 
ment;"— "to  provoke  the  spite  of  the  worst  characters 
in  the  Church ;" — "  the  pettj^  terrorism  of  such  men  ;" — 
"  their  unscrupulous  animosity ;" — "  In  the  Illinois  case, 
this  class  of  men  were  known  to  be  enlisted  in  behalf  of 
the  Candidate  ;" — "political  demagogues;" — The  Candi- 
date's "self-stultifying  oaths  and  affirmations;" — "log- 
rolling;"— "worse  than  doubtful  theolog}- ;" — "artifices 
and  disingenuous  manoeuvres." 

My  Dear  Bishop,  if  you  were  not  a  Bishop,  wri ting- 
about  Churchmen,  you  could  not  print  such  things  with 
impunity,  though  they  were  as  true  as  Gospel.  But, 
conceding  their  truth,  where  is  the  sorrow  and  shame 
with  which  a  Christian  Bishop  should  make  such  charges 
against  priests  and  laymen  7  It  is  not  in  your  letter. 
Your  letter  rings  with  defiance,  resentment,  partisanship, 
and  wrath.  It  is  calculated  to  stir  up  strife,  divisions, 
variance,  and  every  evil  work.  It  arraigns  a  considerable 
portion  of  the  Church  in  Illinois  as  ^'  worst  characters." 
It  arraigns  two  presbyters,  at  least,  as  guilty  of  the  most 
dishonorable  practices ;  and  they  two,  who  have  been 
nominated  to  the  Episcopate. 

Suppose  it  were  all  true.     Had  you  no  recourse,  in 


66 

the  discharge  of  your  duty  as  a  Bishop  in  the  Church  of 
God,  but  to  rush  into  the  newspapers,  and  to  publish  our 
shame  to  the  world?  You  have  alleged  enough,  if  you 
can  prove  it  against  any  clergyman  in  any  diocese,  to  en- 
sure his  degradation  from  Holy  Orders,  and  his  subjec- 
tion to  the  contempt  of  every  right-minded  man.  If  it 
be  the  only  duty  of  a  watchman  on  the  walls  of  Zion  to 
blow  a  trumpet,  you  have  done  it ;  but  I  fear  that  men 
will  fall  to  fighting  without  asking  the  cause  of  the  alarm. 

But  suppose  it  should  turn  out  that  it  is  not  all  true. 
Suppose  that  even  a  Bishop  is  liable  to  misconceive  and 
misinterpret  men  ;  that  even  a  Bishop  may  harbor  a 
prejudice,  or  think  that  wisdom  shall  die  with  him.  Sup- 
pose that  Dr.  Seymour,  or  Dr.  DeKoven,  should  happen, 
by  some  strange  accident,  to  be  Christian  gentlemen,  not- 
withstanding the  fact  that  their  theology  differs  consider- 
ably from  that  of  the  Bishop  of  Western  New  York.  Sup- 
pose that  they  two  should  be  as  ready  to  deplore  any 
questionable  "  artifices  "  of  indiscreet  and  self-constituted 
champions  of  their  cause,  as  the  Bishop  of  Western  New 
York  is  to  nail  them  to  the  counter;  is  it  not  a  rather 
serious  breach  of  charity,  to  use  the  weight  of  your  of- 
fice to  emphasize  assertions  which,  however  you  may  be- 
lieve them  to  be  true,  are  scarcely  capable  of  demonstra- 
tion, unless  you  can  so  demonstrate  their  truth  as  to  drive 
these  men  out  of  the  Priesthood  and  out  of  society,  into 
the  infamy  and  obscurity  which  belong  to  such  charac- 
ters 7 

I  do  not  discuss  the  main  question  as  to  the  "  sound- 
ness "  of  Dr.  DeKoven  or  of  Dr.  Seymour  in  their  the- 
ology. 1  do  not  symbolize  with  either  of  them  in  doc- 
trinal definition,"  as  I  understand  their  definitions.  But 
I  am  thoroughly  aggrieved  and  scandalized  by  the  whole 
tone  and  temper  of  your  letter,  as  I  read  it  in  The  Church- 


67 

MAN,  and,  if  you  were  ten  Bishops,  I  should  say  so  as  pub- 
licly as  possible. 

I  am, 

Yours  respectfully, 

John  Vaughan  Lewis, 
>S'^.  John's  Parish,  Washingtoii^  D.  (7., 
Sept  Uh,  1^1^. 


From  The  Churchman  of  September  11///,  1875. 
ELECTION  OF  DEAN  IN  THE  GENERAL  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY, 

To  the  Editor  of  The  Churchman  : 

In  the  last  issue  of  The  Churchman  there  appears  a 
letter  from  the  Bishop  of  Western  New  York  in  which 
these  words  following  are  used,  viz.  : 

"This  Journal  [Proceedings  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  of  the 
General  Theological  Seminary,  at  their  Annual  Meeting,  June  24, 
1875],  informs  us  tliat  the  number  of  Trustees  is  421,  inclusive  of 
our  fifty-seven  Bishops.  Of  these  400  Trustees,  seventy-seven  seem 
to  have  voted  to  make  the  new  Dean.  There  were  but  six  Bishops 
present  :  of  these  how  many  voted  for  him  does  not  appear.  At  all 
events,  a  mere  fraction  of  the  corporate  body  is  responsible  for  a 
measure,  of  the  importance  of  which  I  do  not  now  propose  to  speak 
particularly." 

Of  course  it  is  quite  impossible  that  the  Bishop  of 
Western  New  York  should  intentionally  mislead  the  read- 
ers of  The  Churchman  ;  and  yet  some  who  do  not  know 
all  the  facts  necessary  for  the  deduction  of  a  right  conclu- 
sion may  be  misled  by  the  words  which  I  have  quoted. 
For  the  information  of  all  who  care  to  have  a  right  esti- 
mate of  the  action  of  the  Trustees  of  the  General  Theo- 
logical Seminary,  I  would  ask  you  to  publish  the  follow- 
ing table  made  up  from  the  official  minutes  of  the  Board 
of  Trustees  of  the  hxst  timntt/  meetings  during  the  ten  yeai\s 
last  past. 


68 


There  were  present : 

June 

27,  1866, 

3  Ki 

shops 

an( 

d  55 

other 

Trustees 

t( 

26,  J  867, 

1 

n 

(( 

52 

" 

a 

u        * 

23,  1868 

1 

it 

(( 

39 

a 

>( 

il 

25,  1868 

2 

(( 

li 

56 

a 

k( 

February 

3,  1869, 

3 

u 

a 

76 

" 

(( 

April 

7,  1869, 

4 

u 

a 

81 

a 

a 

June 

24,  1869, 

8 

u 

li 

99 

a 

a 

October 

12,  1869, 

16 

u 

a 

97 

<i 

u 

J  anuary 

19,  1870, 

1 

u 

" 

72 

a 

u 

June 

30,  1870, 

7 

u 

u 

103 

u 

t( 

October 

20,  1870, 

2 

(( 

it 

32 

;( 

u 

" 

28,  1870, 

13 

u 

a 

94 

u 

(( 

May 

25,  1871 

1 

(1 

u 

34 

i( 

u 

June 

29,  1871, 

8 

u 

u 

110 

u 

u 

u 

27,  1872, 

9 

u 

u 

120 

u 

i( 

November  7,  1873 

13 

a 

u 

94 

(( 

(( 

June 

26,  1873, 

10 

a 

u 

113 

u 

(i 

" 

23,  1874 

12 

a 

u 

65 

(( 

u 

u 

25,  1874 

8 

" 

<l 

92 

<( 

u 

u 

24,  1875 

6 

iC 

u 

108' 

u 

(( 

From  this  table  it  is  evident  that  all  the  business  of 
this  Board  of  Trustees  for  ten  years  last  past  has  been 
transacted  by  "  a  mere  fraction  of  the  corporate  body." 

That  at  only  three  meetings  during  the  same  period 
has  the  number  of  Trustees  present  been  greater  tha)i  at 
the  meeting  at  which  the  Dean  was  elected. 

That  the  only  meetings  which  have  brought  toge- 
ther more  than  one  hundred  Trustees,  other  than  the  Bis- 
hops, have  been  the  annual  meetings  in  June. 

There  are  other  facts,  desirable  to  be  known,  con- 
tained in  the  proceedings  of  this  Board  at  these  twenty 
meetings  above  noted,  to  which  I  desire  to  call  attention, 
viz.  : 

Three  times  has  there  been  an  election  of  Dean  :  (1) 
In  June,  1869,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Lyman  received  the  votes 
of  7  Bishops  and  of  53  out  of  93  other  Trustees ;  (2)  in 
October,  1809,  the  Eev<  Pr.  Forbes  received  tbft  Yoi^H 


fi9 

of  15  Bishops  and  52  out  of  90  other  Trustees ;  (3)  in 
June,  1875,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Seymour  received  the  votes  of 
77  out  of  93  Trustees,  the  Bishops  not  voting  separately. 

Nine  times  has  there  been  an  election  of  Professor, 
and  twice  an  attempt  to  elect:  (1)  In  February,  1869,  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Vinton  was  elected  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical 
Polity  and  Law,  by  a  majority  vote  (no  numbers  are  gi- 
ven), 79  Trustees  being  present;  (2)  in  April,  1869,  the 
Rev,  Dr.  Walton  was  unanimously  elected  Professor  of 
Hebrew  and  Greek,  85  Trustees  being  present;  (3)  in 
October,  1869,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Mahan  was  elected  Professor 
of  Systematic  Divinity  receiving  the  votes  of  15  Bishops 
and  68  out  of  96  other  Trustees ;  (4)  in  June,  1870,  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Mahan  was  again  elected  Professor  of  System- 
atic Divinity,  receiving  the  votes  of  7  Bishops  and  of  48 
out  of  85  other  Trustees ;  (5)  in  October,  1870,  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Cady  was  elected  Professor  of  Systematic  Divinity, 
receiving  the  votes  of  7  Bishops  and  43  out  of  76  other 
Trustees;  (6)  in  June,  1871,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Buel  was  elec- 
ted Professor  of  Systematic  Divinity,  receiving  71  votes 
out  of  107,  the  Bishops  not  voting  separately ;  and  (7)  at 
the  same  time  the  Rev.  Mr.  Hall  was  elected  Professor  of 
Hebrew  and  Greek,  receiving  75  votes  out  of  105,  the 
Bishops  not  voting  separately ;  (8)  in  June,  1873,  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Oliver  was  elected  Professor  of  Biblical  Learn- 
ing, etc.,  receiving  57  votes  out  of  95,  the  Bishops  not 
voting  separately  ;  and  (9)  at  the  same  time  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Seabury  was  elected  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  Polity  and 
Law,  by  45  votes  out  of  89,  the  Bishops  not  voting  separ- 
ately. In  the  two  attempts  at  election  which  failed  in 
result,  the  largest  number  of  ballots  cast  was  88. 

From  all  this  it  is  evident  that  the  77  votes  which 
were  cast  for  the  present  Dean  of  the  Seminary  would 
have  been  a  majority  in  any  ballot  which  has  been  held 
for  any  officer  for  ten  years ;  and  is  a  greater  number  of 


70 

votes  than  any  Dean  has  ever  before  received,  and  also 
greater  than  any  Professor  has  received,  excepting  only 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Mahan,  and  possibly  the  Rev.  Dr.  Walton. 

E.  M.  Pecke. 
Richfield  Springs^  N.  F.,  Sept.  ith,  1875. 


From  the  Churchman,  Daily  Edition,  October  olst,  ISI^^  page  198. 

PROFESSOR  SEYMOUR'S  LETTER  TO  THE  HOUSE  OF  CLERICAL 
AND  LAY  DEPUTIES  OF  THE  GENERAL  CONVENTION. 

Reverend  Brethren  and  Brethren  of  the  Laity : 

The  unprecedented  course,  which  has  been 
adopted  and  pursued  by  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay 
Deputies,  in  reference  to  the  question  of  my  confirmation 
to  the  Episcopate,  justifies  me,  I  venture  to  submit,  in 
addressing  this  note  to  your  Reverend  and  Honorable 
Body,  to  crave  the  privilege  of  being  allowed  to  be  pre- 
sent on  the  floor  of  your  House  to  answer  for  myself  the 
charges  which  may  be  made  against  me,  as  to  anything 
that  I  have  ever  said  or  done. 

Vague  rumors  reach  me  of  serious  accusations,  which, 
so  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  ascertain  the  drift  of  them, 
are  without  exception  founded  on  mistake,  and  are  easily 
corrected  and  refuted.  But  in  most  points  they  touch 
upon  things  fully  known  only  to  myself,  or  to  others  who 
are  not  members  of  your  House,  so  that  no  explanations 
sent  through  third  persons  can  be  entirely  satisfactory  to 
you,  or  just  to  me. 

I  can  truly  say  from  my  heart  that  I  never,  sought 
or  desired  the  Episcopal  office.  My  present  painful  posi- 
tion as  a  Bishop-elect,  is  one  into  which  I  was  suddenly 
forced  by  circumstances  over  which  I  had  no  control. 
Gladly  would  I,  had  I  the  power,  replace  myself  where  I 
was  when  the  Diocese  of  Illinois  elected  me^  but  this  I 
cannot  do  at  this  stage  of  the  proceedings. 


n 

For  nineteen  years  and  more  I  have  served  the 
Church  as  Deacon  and  Presbyter,  and  I  leave  it  to  my 
Bishop,  and  my  Brethren  of  the  Clergy  and  Laity,  who 
have  known  me  from  the  first,  to  tell  how  I  have  lived, 
and  how  I  have  labored.  But  I  will  say  for  myself  that 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  has  never  had  a  more 
loyal  son  than  she  has  in  me.  I  will  say  for  myself,  and 
all  who  know  me  will  bear  me  witness  that  it  is  true,  that 
there  is  nothing  which  is  further  from  my  nature  than 
concealment  or  evasion. 

The  question  with  me  is  not  whether  I  am  to  be 
made  a  Bishop  or  no.  My  anxiety  is  altogether  for  my 
life  and  usefulness  as  a  Clergyman,  and  my  character  as  a 
man. 

With  great  respect, 

Very  faithfully  and  truly  yours, 

George  F.  Seymour. 
General  Theological  Seminary, 
New  York,  Oct.  22d,  1874. 

This  letter  was  read  by  the  Secretary  to  the  House, 
but  the  request  was  not  granted. 


At  the  Annual  meeting  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  of 
the  General  Theological  Seminary  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church,  held  in  the  City  of  New  York,  on 
Thursday,  June  24th,  1875,  the  following  Trustees  were 
present.     (See  Proceeding,  Vol.  IV.,  pp.  715,  716.) 

T^he  Rt.  Rev.  the  Bishops  of  New  York,  Maine,  Long- 
Island,  Albany,  Massachusetts,  and  New  Jersey. 

The  Rev.  Drs.  T.  Edson,  E.  M.  P.« Wells,  N.  Hoppin, 
A.  Burgess,  P.  Williams,  J.  L.  Clark,  D.  H.  Short,  F.  J. 
Hawley,  W.  G.  Spencer,  E.  N.  Mead,  J.  H.  Price,  W.  E. 
Eigenbrodt,  I.  H.  Tuttle,  Alfred  B.  Beach,  T.  A.  Eaton, 
C.  R.  Duffie,  R.  S.  Howland,  M.  Dix,  F.  Ogilby,  T.  M. 


n 

Peters^  G.  H.  Houghton,  S.  HoUingsworth,  C.  E.  Swope, 
J.  B.  Gibson,  S.  H.  Weston,  G.  F.  Seymour,  S.  Buel,  A. 
Oliver,  W.  H.  Moore,  D.  V.  M.  Johnson,  T.  S.  Drowne, 
S.  Cox,  J.  A.  Paddock,  N.  H.  Schenck,  J.  H.  Hopkins,  F. 
Harison,  W.  T.  Gibson,  W.  Ayrault,  J.  A.  Williams,  A. 
Stubbs,  R.  M.  Abercrombie,  W.  G.  Farrington,  E.  B. 
Boggs,  E.  Y.  Buchanan,  H.  Stanley,  J.  S.  B.  Hodges,  S. 
C.  Thrall,  J.  De  Koven,  and  F.  W.  Boyd. 

The  Rev.  Messrs.  S.  Upjohn,  F.  W.  Smith,  R.  H. 
Paine,  R.  Whittingham,  L.  French,  W.  A.  Johnson,  S. 
Clark,  C  Clapp,  W.  W.  Olssen,  Randall  C.  Hall,  E.  D. 
Cooper,  W.  A.  Snively,  G.  W.  Smith,  E  M.  Pecke,  F.  M. 
Cookson,  J.  Cary,  R.  Weeks,  R  N.  Merritt,  J  H.  Smith, 
S.  W.  Sayres,  S.  Parker,  E.  K.  Smith,  N.  Pettit,  A.  U. 
Stanley,  H.  S.  Bishop,  A.  B.  Baker,  T.  G.  Littell,  Richard 
C.  Hall,  W.  F.  Brand,  A.  J.  Rich,  M.D.,  J.  Chipchase,  E. 
G.  Weed,  and  J.  H.  Knowles. 

Messrs.  T.  H.  Canfield,  Dr.  G.  C.  Shattuck,  C.  Cur- 
tiss,  E.  Butler,  H.  Drisler,  S.  P.  Nash,  A.  B.  McDonald, 
J.  Buckley,  W.  A.  Davies,  C.  Livingston,  John  A.  Dix, 
T.  W.  Ogden,  W.  C.  Gilman,  H.  E.  Pierrepont,  J.  A.  King, 
0.  Meads,  J.  C.  Harison,  J.  Forsyth,  G.  C.  McWhorter,  H. 
V.  Bostwick,  J.  C.  Garthwaite,  G.  C.  Hance,  W.  B,  Mott, 
H.  Burgwin,  L.  B.  Otis,  and  W.  F.  Whitehouse. 

Of  these  Trustees  93  voted  in  the  election  of  perma- 
nent Dean,  and  of  the  93  votes  thus  cast,  77  were  given 
for  the  Rev.  Dr.  Seymour,  and  16  for  various  candidates 
as  follows :  the  Rev.  Dr.  Eigenbrodt,  6  ;  Rev.  Dr.  Alfred 
B.  Beach,  4  ;  Rev.  Dr.  E.  A.  Hoffman,  3  ;  Rev.  Dr.  Henry 
A.  Coit,  1 ;  Rev.  Dr.  A.  Burgess,  1 ;  Blank  1.  ^ 


EXPLANATORY    NOTE. 


I  have  been  informed  that  the  Bishop  of  Western  New  York 
intended  to  continue  the  correspondence  which  he  began  in  the 
Churchman  of  September  4th,  1875.  I  have  delayed,  in  conse- 
quence, the  issuing  of  the  present  publication,  in  order  that  I  might 
include  his  forthcomin'g  letter  or  letters,  with  such  remarks  as  I 
might  deem  it  necessary  to  make  in  reply.  As  much  more  than  a 
month,  however,  has  now  elapsed,  and  the  Bishop  has  not  again 
renewed  his  assault,  I  submit  that  I  have  good  reason  to  assume 
that  the  correspondence  is  closed. 

I  think  there  are  very  few  who  will  not  agree  with  me  that, 
newspapers  are,  as  a  rule,  a  very  unsatisfactory  channel  through 
which  to  argue  a  question  involving  personal  issues ;  and  when,  as 
in  the  present  instance,  the  parties  concerned  are  a  Bishop  and  a 
Presbyter  in  the  Church  of  God,  let  the  merits  of  the  case  be  what 
they  may,  the  discussion  is  prejudicial  to  the  best  interests  of  reli- 
gion, and  devolves  a  very  grave  responsibility  upon  him  who  pro- 
vokes and  compels  it. 

A  Bishop  is  in  a  peculiarly  favorable  position  for  bringing  any 
one  whom  he  may  believe  to  be  delinquent  to  trial,  and  I  am  provi- 
dentially in  a  situation  where  it  would  be  pre-eminently  easy  for  any 
Bishop  to  institute  proceedings  against  me. 

I  have  only  to  say  that,  if  the  Bishop  of  Western  New  York,  or 
any  other  Bishop,  or  any  one  else,  should  deem  it  necessary  or 
advisable  to  pursue  this  course,  I  should  heartily  welcome  such  an 
investigation,  and  would  afford  every  facility  in  my  power  for  mak- 
ing it  thorough  and  exhaustive ;  and  moreover,  I  can  well  under- 
stand that  a  Presenter,  under  such  circumstances,  might  act  from 
a  high  sense  of  duty,  and  without  any  personal  animosity,  and  hence 
I  could  meet  him  before  the  tribunal  as  a  friend,  who  was  seeking  at 
the  cost  of  what  might  be  exceedingly  painful  to  himself  to  benefit 
the  Church,  and  who  would  rejoice  with  me,  were  I  able  to  make  my 
righteousness,  through  God's  help,  as  clear  as  the  light,  and  my  just 
dealing  as  the  noon-day. 

GEORGE  F.  SEYMOUR. 

General  Theological  Seminary, 
November  10//^  1875. 


STATEMENT 


OF    THE 


REV.  SAMUEL  B,  JOHNSON,  D.D. 


SUBMITTED    TO   THE    COMMISSION    OF   BISHOPS 

DEPUTED  BY  THE  HOUSE   OF  BISHOPS  TO 

VISIT    THE    GENERAL   THEOLOGICAL 

SEMINARY,    JANUARY,    1872. 


NEW  YORK: 

Styles  &  Cash,  Steam  Printers  and  Stationers,  77  Eighth  Avenue. 


1875. 


REV.    PROF.  JOHNSON'S    STATEMENT. 


QUESTIONS— CONTENTS— INDEX. 

PAGE. 

How  came  Prof.  Johnson  to  write  his  Statement  ?         -         -         -         -  5 

What  is  the  cause  of  the  Seminary  troubles  ?-----  5 

How  came  there  to  be  no  such  troubles  in  the  19  years  previous  ?         -  5,6 

What  about  the  irregularity  of  Dr.  Seymour's  Report  in  1870  ?          -  6 

Has  the  Faculty  ever  committed  similar  irregularities  ?          -         -         -  6 

Have  other  Professors  done  the  same  (Proc.  pp.  362-447,  1870-71)  ?  7 
Did   the   Faculty   bring   up    any    Student    for    his    Sermon    Exercises 

formerly  ?            ......-.--  7 

Did  the  Professors  treat  equally  well  all  the  Schools  of  Theology  ?        -  7 

Was  the  Seminary  distinguished  for  its  liberality  to  all  ?      -         -          -  7 

Are  there  Seminaries  acting  on  the  reverse  principle  ?           -         -         -  8 

What  was  Bishop  Burgess'  opinion  on  this  point  ?     -         -         -         -  8 

What  was  the  effect  of  a  liberal  policy  in  the  treatment  of  Students  ?    -  9 

What  would  you  include  under  the  Church's  school  of  thought  ?  -  9 
Were   the    Students   of  one    school  treated    severely    of  late    in    the 

Seminary  ?----------  9 

What  about  Mr.  's  case  ? 10 

What  concerning  Dr.  Seymour  ?-.-----  H 

Are  there  cases  resembling  Dr.  Seymour's  .-'           -----  11,  12 

Is  Dr.  Seymour  accurate  in  his  statements  in  his  pamphlet  ?      -         -  "12 

Was  the  Seminary  better  off  before  the  permanent  Deanship  ?      -         -  13 

Were  the  Recitations  better  attended  under  the  permanent  Dean  ?     -  14 

What  was  the  history  of  the  Seminary's  early  Communion  .'          -         -  14,  15 

What  were  the  charges  against  our  early  Communion  }     -         -         -  15,  16 

What  about  the  audience  rising  at  presenting  the  alms  ?        -         -         -  16,  17 

What  about  the  charge  that  wafer  bread  was  used  ?           -         -         -  17 

What  various  expectations  were  formed  concerning  the  Dean  ?     -         -  17 

What  his  consistent  course  has  been,  .--.--  18 
What  was  the  History  of  the  Retreat  just  before  the  Ordination  ?          -     18,  19,  20 

What  was  the  discipline  in  Mr. 's  case .''           -         -         -         -  20,  21 

How  about  the  Scholarships'?       -.-.-■---  21 

Or  about  the  Seminary  Catalogue  ?            ------  21,  23 

Student  vestures  1 •         -         -  32 

The  use  of  personal  illustrations  ]-------  22 

About  the  Faculty  decision  against  Prof.  Johnson's  voting  \          -        -  28 

The  closing  wish, -.-  23 


PREFATORY     NOTE 


The  House  of  Bishops  at  the  General  Coiwention  of  1871  appointed  a  Com- 
mission of  their  own  body  to  visit  the  General  Theological  Seminary  in  the  course 
of  the  ensuing  winter,  and  investigate  the  troubles  which  had  arisen  in  the  Institu- 
tion during  the  previous  two  years,  and,  if  possible,  adjust  the  difficulties. 

The  Commission  consisted  of  the  Rt.  Rev.  Bishops  Atkinson  (Chairman), 
Whitehouse.,  Lay,  Bissell,  Morris,  Niles,  and  Pinkney.  All  the  members  of  this 
Commission  accepted  the  appointment,  and  discharged  the  duty  assigned  them, 
except  Bishop  Morris,  whose  distant  mission  field  had  prior  claims  upon  his  time 
and  attention. 

The  Commission  of  six  Bishops,  as  above  enumerated,  representing  the  House 
of  Bishops,  met  at  the  Seminary  in  New  York,  January  11th,  1872,  and  remained 
in  session  one  week.  They  brought  their  labors  to  a  close  by  a  happy  adjustment 
of  the  differences  which  had  existed.  The  basis  of  agreement  which  the  Bishops 
submitted  was  understood  to  be  the  composition  of  the  late  Professor  Seabury. 

The  Bean  and  all  the  Profegsors  present  signed  this  paper  in  the  jDresence  of  the 
Bishops  and  of  each  other,  and  the  questions  which  had  been  in  dispute  up  to  that 
time  were  amicably  arranged — settled,  it  was  supposed,  to  the  mutual  satisfaction 
of  both  parties.  In  the  recent  General  Convention,  however,  these  issues  were 
reopened  and  reviewed  by  those  who  opposed  the  Confirmation  of  the  Bishop- 
elect  of  Illinois,  as  though  the  House  of  Bishops  through  their  Commission  had 
not  settled  them — as  though  the  parties  involved  had  not  signed  an  agreement 
closing  the  discussion  for  ever. 

The  following  statement  was  prepared  by  the  late  Rev.  Samuel  R.  Johnson, 
D.D.,  and  was  by  him  sent  to  the  Bishops  who  sat  as  a  Commission  for  the  visita- 
tion of  the  Seminary  in  January,  1872.  The  Rev.  Dr.  Johnson  served  as  a  Professor 
in  the  Institution  for  twenty  years.  This  document  is  now  published  under  the 
stress  of  recent  events,  in  order  that  one  who  knew  more  of  the  Seminary,  its 
history,  its  traditions,  its  internal  life  and  management,  than  any  other  person  that 
could  be  named,  may  be  heard  upon  the  subject  of  the  troubles  which  arose  under 
the  administration  of  the  late  Dean.  The  Rev,  Dr.  Samuel  R.  Johnson  "  being 
dead  yet  speaketh," 


S  TAT  E  M  E  N  T 

OF    THE 

Rev.  Samuel  R.  Johnson,  D.D., 

Submitted    to    the    Commission    of    Bishops   deputed    by    the 

House  of  Bishops  to  Visit  the  General  Theological 

Seminary,  January,  1873. 


For    the   Rt.    Rev.    Visitors   of  the    General    Theological   Seminary., 
appointed  by  the  General  Convention  of  1871. 

Right  Reverend  Fathers  :  I  understand  that  a  Visitation  of 
the  General  Theological  Seminary  is  to  begin  on  the  11th  January, 
A.D.  1872,  by  certain  Bishops  appointed  by  the  General  (Convention. 
As  I  have  been  for  twenty  years  Professor  in  the  Institution,  and  was 
in  Professor  duties  until  July  1st,  1870,  and  was  present  on  several 
occasions,  and  conducted  certain  religious  services  which  may  be 
subjects  of  investigation,  I  hold  myself  in  readiness,  in  case  my 
presence  should  be  requested  or  required,  to  give  personal  answer  to 
all  questions  which  might  be  asked  of  me.  But  as  such  investigation 
did  not  come  on,  and  I  am  now  far  removed  from  the  Seminary,  and 
it  is  winter  time,  I  have  thought  that  perhaps  my  written  statement 
might  be  sufficient  without  my  presence.  I  first  thought  of  prefixing 
questions  and  answering  them,  but  prefer  to  give  a  more  current 
statement,  and  then  to  refer  to  certain  pages  as  containing  the  replies 
to  certain  questions  which  might  be  asked.  If  I  were  asked  what 
first  gave  occasion  for  trouble  in  the  Faculty,  I  would  say,  I  think  it 
came  from  reversing  the  temper  and  habits  of  those  former  days  of 
peace,  when  the  several  various  theological  schools  of  thought  were 
all  treated  with  equal  generosity ;  when  each  Professor  taught  what 
he  considered  the  truth,  and  there  the  matter  rested — the  variations 
of  Professors  and  students  not  being  made  subjects  for  the  action  of 
the  Faculty.  During  all  the  years  of  Professor  Turner,  this  differ- 
ence amongst  the  Professors  was  considerable.  But  he  used  to  say 
pleasantly,  and  in  his  own  quaint  way,  "  Gentlemen,  we  may  differ  in 
our  views ;  but  I  feel  myself  perfectly  independent  in  my  recitation 
room  and  when  consulted,  and  I  presume  you  do  the  same.  We 
have  each  our  own  rights  here.  But  I  am  responsible  for  mine,  and 
you  for  yours,  gentlemen, — if  you  do  not  tread  upon  my  toes,  I  will 


6 

not  upon  yours."  So,  though  the  views  of  our  Professors  were  more 
widely  apart  then  than  ever  since  his  death,  yet  there  was  no  collision 
and  no  contradiction,  and  real  friendliness  of  intercourse.  There 
seemed  more  danger  of  controversy  as  we  listened  to  the  sermons 
preached  in  the  Seminary  Chapel,  and  did  not  agree  with  the 
preacher.  I  have  seen  good  Dr.  Turner  shake  his  head  occasionally 
while  Professor  Haight  argued,  and  known  him  to  express  his  dissent 
afterwards  when  Professor  Mahan  had  beautifully  interpreted  the 
types  of  Sampson's  history.  But  subjects  were  seldom  controversial ; 
and  the  feeling  and  the  criticism  were  merely  private  affairs  of  the 
individual.  The  Faculty  was  not  then  the  body  which  propounded 
doctrine  or  the  limitations  of  doctrine  officially,  as  it  has  done  since 
the  late  agitation.     {See  Proc.  \%l^,page  403.) 

I  cannot  help  thinking,  that  if  Professor  Seymour  might  be  charged 
with  irregularity  in  appending  to  his  Professorial  Report  his  own 
Resolutions,  which  were  otherwise  excluded  from  meeting  the  eyes 
of  the  Trustees,  and  which  he  himself  did  not  deem  irrelevant,  much 
more  might  it  be  said  that  the  Faculty  passed  beyond  the  limits  of 
their  office  and  their  proper  line  in  publishing  to  the  Trustees  and  to 
the  Church  their  own  Dogmatic  Definition  as  to  the  Holy  Eucharist. 
On  this  sacred  mystery  we  know  that  there  has  been  all  manner  of 
diversity  of  opinion  among  our  pures't  and  ablest  Divines.  Men  have 
never  been  able  to  agree  here.  Here  the  Church  of  Rome  took  the 
highest  extreme,  and  compelled  acceptance  of  its  one  formi'la.  Its 
error  was  greater  in  the  compulsion  than  in  the  extreme ;  and  the 
painful  results  in  history  were  from  the  persecutions  which  ensued, 
and  the  violations  of  the  law  of  freedom.  Never  will  the  Church  of 
God  have  peace,  never  come  to  anything  like  unity,  unless  they  allow 
liberty  upon  this  sacramental  theme.  If  the  Israelites  kept  the  Great 
Passover,  it  was  sufficient.  At  all  events  it  is  the  Church  itself  which 
propounds  doctrines,  not  the  Individual,  not  the  College  Faculty. 
The  question  how  far  the  liberty  of  opinion  as  to  what  the  Church 
allows  concerning  the  Eucharist,  it  is  not  for  such  to  decide.  Emin- 
ent Judicial  authority,  as  by  Sir  R.  S.  Phillimore  in  the  case  of  Dr. 
Bennett,  decided  just  the  very  opposite  of  the  Faculty's  third  Resolu- 
tion ;  and  it  referred  to  the  large  class  of  eminent  Bishops  and 
Divines,  in  successive  line  from  the  early  Reformation  down,  who 
held  and  hold  the  contrary.  Sir  Robert  referred  to  the  very  Bishop 
who  "had  the  penning"  of  our  28th  Article  on  that  very  subject  of 
the  Lord's  Supper,  and  to  his  famous  letter  as  using  the  very  phrases 
which  our  Faculty  Resolution  deems  unlawful.  It  is  not  for  the 
Faculty  by  a  majority  vote  to  tell  the  Professors  and  the  students 
what  we  are  entitled  to  believe.  This  I  know  for  myself,  that  if  you 
separate  from  my  consciousness  our  Lord  and  Saviour  as  "  personally" 


present  to  my  faith,  you  kill  out  the  very  life  of  my  religion.  It  is  the 
Eternal  Son  of  God  who  is  the  one  only  "Person,"  not  to  be  separ- 
ated, not  to  be  divided  from  the  nature  which  He  took,  no,  not  for 
the  twinkling  of  an  eye,  as  ancient  Liturgy  has  it.  But  the  true 
question  here  is  not  as  to  Doctrine,  but  Liberty. 

Besides,  the  Professor  might  point  to  the  Professor's  Reports 
published  in  the  Proceedings  of  the  Trustees,  where  on  pp.  363  and 
447,  sentiments  are  expressed  bearitig  upon  the  very  subject  which 
was  handled  by  Dr.  Seymour  as  to  a  liberal  policy  in  the  Seminary 
discipline,  but  testifying  on  the  other  side  to  the  advantage  of  the 
repressive  system.  If  improper  in  him  at  length,  the  same  in  others 
in  brief.  While  for  nineteen  years  of  my  Seminary  life  there  was,  as 
I  have  said,  peace  among  the  Professors,  so  there  was  no  official 
difficulty  as  to  the  views  of  the  students.  Students,  of  course,  had 
their  personal  troubles  occasionally.  There  were  also  real  quarrels 
among  them  on  the  subject  of  Church  music  and  plain-song  chants. 
Of  course  there  was  every  shade  of  sentiment  as  to  Church  views 
from  the  extreme  low  to  the  very  high.  There  were  often  crude 
statements,  imperfect,  wrong,  confused,  ignorant  and  amusing  in  all 
varieties.  But  the  Professors  had  faith  in  their  own  influence  and 
teaching,  in  the  growth  of  the  mind,  in  the  alterative  processes  of  the 
Seminary's  healthful  atmosphere.  They  did  not  summon  the  youth- 
ful imprudent  divine,  or  the  flourishing  rhetorician,  before  the  Board, 
nor  report  him  to  his  Bishop  for  castigation.  As  the  rough  agate 
stone  is  driven  through  the  tall  tower,  subject  to  the  whirling  and 
the  grinding  all  the  way  ;  then  is  carried  back  to  the  top  to  undergo 
the  same  friction,  and  to  come  out  fairly  rounded  at  the  second  turn ; 
and  yet  once  more,  the  third  time,  passes  the  same  ordeal,  and  comes 
out  generally  a  finely  formed  and  handsome  agate  marble  :  so  by  the 
time  the  Middle  Class  was  through,  we  all  marked  a  vast  improve- 
ment ;  and  by  the  time  the  Senior  Class  had  graduated  at  the  third 
repeat,  the  ignorances  were  gone,  the  roughness  had  been  removed, 
the  notions  had  been  corrected,  and  we  felt  happy  in  presenting  the 
class  well  balanced,  well  furnished  and  promising,  prepared  for  useful 
work  and  honorable  in  the  Church  of  God.  I  boldly  affirm  that  no 
one  fell  into  displeasure  because  he  belonged  to  this  or  that  school 
of  theology ;  never  did  a  student  feel  that  the  cold  shoulder  was 
turned  to  him,  or  that  he  was  a  subject  of  suspicion  on  that  account. 
The  most  extreme  low  churchman  never  could  mark  any  difference 
in  affectionate  treatment.  We  worked  as  strenuously  to  get  a  scholar- 
ship for  the  one  as  for  the  other ;  we  put  out  freely  our  welcoming 
arms,  and  afterwards  folded  in  our  arms  of  love  each  and  all. 
Neglects,  short-comings,  violations  of  duty  or  proper  moral  or 
religious  behaviour  alone  subjected  a  student  to  discipline. 


1  know  that  in  other  theological  institutions  it  was  often  reported 
that  the  rule  was  different — that  high  churchmen,  for  instance,  were 
suspiciously  and  unkindly  treated.  Students  left  these  institutions 
and  made  these  complaints  when  they  came  in  to  us.  They  had 
been  called  up,  charged  with  using, certain  expressions  as  to  baptism, 
for  instance,  and  asked  what  they  meant  by  it.  We  trusted  in  the 
three  years  instruction  and  influence ;  and  if  the  student  at  the  end 
differed  from  us,  we  considered  that  he  had  a  right  to  his  position. 
As  to  ordination,  that  was  an  after  investigation,  for  which  the 
Episcopate  was  responsible,  with  the  Canonical  Examiners  and  the 
Standing  Committees. 

It  is  not  long  since  in  one  of  our  educational  societies,  the  con- 
dition of  certain  theological  students  elsewhere  was  painfully  exposed. 
While  yet  uninformed,  they  had  been  obliged  to  pledge  themselves  to 
partizan  views.  Their  reading,  their  study  led  them,  or  kept  leading 
them  on,  in  the  opposite  direction.  They  depended  upon  a  society 
which  was  exclusive ;  they  felt  that  they  had  lost  their  freedom,  that 
they  were  working  with  a  collar ;  that  almost  all  other  students  of 
divinity  in  the  Church  were  bound  by  no  other  restriction  .than  the 
Church  itself  imposed — free  to  decide  within  the  lines  of  the  lowest 
low,  or  the  highest  high,  or  the  intermediate  anywhere.  But  they 
could  not,  unless  they  parted  with  their  only  means  of  support,  which 
in  the  other  churchly  institutions  would  have  been  secure  to  them. 

I  remember  a  deeply  interesting  interview  I  had  with  the  late 
lamented  Bishop  Burgess.  He  had  nephews  to  place  in  a  Theological 
Seminary.  He  visited  two  institutions  which  accorded  most  nearly 
with  his  own  personal  conclusions.  But  he  found  them  exceedingly 
partizan  and  narrow,  only  the  one  side  was  presented.  Variant  views 
were  treated  harshly.  Suspicions  and  prejudices  surrounded  those 
who  held  them.  They  were  educated  for  a  party.  There  was  no 
free,  manly  exercise  of  enquiry  or  debate  allowed.  "  But  I  came 
over,"  said  he,  "to  your  General  Seminary,  and  I  found  it  just  the 
reverse.  The  low  were  treated  as  affectionately  as  the  high ;  you 
worked  as  much  for  the  student  of  one  type  as  of  another.  Books 
belonging  to  either  side  were  freely  circulated  and  read.  I  went  into 
your  reading  room,  and  I  found  the  Church  Journal  and  the  Protestant 
Churchman^  with  other  papers,  side  by  side.  I  hope  my  young  friends 
will  come  out  Evangelical  Churchmen ;  but  I  want  them  to  under- 
stand themselves,  and  to  be  clear  and  free  for  just  and  manly 
decision." 

On  this  happy  principle  the  Seminary  had  been  conducted.  And 
it  is  by  far  the  safest  way  to  secure  the  average  result.  Under  the 
kindly  influences  of  the  Seminary  extremes  abated.  By  Graduation 
time   there   were   few  decided    ultraists   at    either   end.      And    the 


9 

student's  life  was  happy,  and  the  Professors  were  at  peace.  The 
classes  of  Theological  Schools  may  be  called,  the  low,  the  moderate, 
the  high,  the  broad,  the  Catholic.  With  regard  to  the  last,  I  heard 
our  venerable  Professor  Seabury  say,  that  when  he  led  ofl"  so  openly 
in  behalf  of  young  Arthur  Carey,  who  stood  just  where  Drs.  Pusey, 
Liddon,  and  Bishop  Hamilton  and  the  men  of  the  advanced  school 
were  and  are,  "  it  was  a  mistake  to  conclude  him  as  agreeing  in  his 
special  views.  It  was,"  said  he,  "  simply  the  question  of  liberty,  and 
I  maintained  his  right,  with  his  ideas,  to  be  a  candidate  for  orders, 
and  to  be  ordained  a  minister." 

Our  present  reverend  Dean  in  his  Inaugural  laid  down  the  same 
generous  propositions.  Now  since  these  later  days,  while  all  other 
views  have  been  indulgently  allowed,  the  last  or  advanced  class  has 
been  treated  just  as  I  stated  students  had  been  treated  in  some  other 
Theological  Seminaries.  Their  ideas  were  pronounced  unlawful,  not 
allowed  by  the  Church,  as  if  they  had  no  right  to  such  position — in 
fact  as  if  they  ought  not  to  be  ordained.  Wishes  were  expressed  on 
the  floor  of  the  Trustees  and  elsewhere,  that  they  would  hurry  over 
to  Rome,  where  they  belonged.  Denying  all  allegiance  to  the  Bishop 
of  Rome  ;  maintaining  that  the  bread  and  wine  were  elements  remain- 
ing ;  unwilling  to  embrace  specific  statements  of  Roman  Councils  on 
subjects  where  the  one  Catholic  Church  had  left  the  questions  open  ; 
longing  for  what  they  considered  the  perfection  of  a  nati(mal  Church, 
of  course  not  infallible  and  always  open  to  improvement ;  claiming  to 
be  tried  by  the  famous  pronouncement  of  Bishop  Ken,  which  our  own 
Bishop  Coxe  so  boldly  and  eloquently  lately  urged  before  a  great 
Religious  Association  of  the  Continent ;  they  yet  felt  themselves 
ungenerously  crowded  out  of  their  liberty,  of  possession  in  the  large 
comprehensive  Catholic  Church  of  their  inheritance  and  their  national 
stock.  I  suppose  some  might  question  this.  But  I  state  here,  as  I 
stated  to  the  Dean  in  person,  that  no  one  else,  however  otherwise 
extreme,  was  questioned  or  made  to  feel  uncomfortable ;  no  other 
was  treated  suspiciously;  no  other  opinion  was  presented  for  censure 
but  theirs  ;  no  other  persons  were  obstructed  practically  as  to  ordina- 
tion but  they;  no  others  but  they  were  interfered  with.  Strong 
words  were  used  that  all  this  must  be  put  a  stop  to,  that  the  thing 
must  be  put  down — even  reported  that  it  must  be  stamped  out. 
Young  men  who  were  looking  to  the  Seminary,  and  hearing  this,  pre- 
ferred not  to  enter  under  such  circumstances.  We  had  hoped  that 
one  of  the  special  advantages  of  elevating  to  the  sole  Deanship  a 
reverend  brother  who  had  learned  all  the  nicest  difficulties  and 
intricacies  which  beset  the  Roman  question,  would  be  lovingly  to 
guide,  and  skilfully  to  protect  any  student  who  might  be  thought  to 
be  in  some  danger  of  extremes.    But  he  seemed  afraid  of  such,  rather 


10 

than  glad  to  care  for  them.  When  a  person  whose  eyes  had  been 
opened  to  renounce  Rome  presented  himself,  he  gave  him  no 
encouragement.  It  had  been  the  habitual  use  of  the  Seminary,  if  a 
person  towards  the  close  of  the  Seminary  year,  meaning  to  apply  for 
the  Middle  Class  on  the  next  October,  wished  the  privilege  of  attend- 
ing the  Junior  Class  recitations,  so  as  to  prepare  himself  better  under 
Seminary  guidance,  to  grant  the  request.     Such  privilege  had  been 

just  conceded  co  several  in  the  Seminary.     But  in  Mr. 's*  case 

the  opposite  course  was  taken.  He  was  a  passed  candidate  for  orders. 
He  was  the  son  of  an  English  clergyman.  His  examination,  literary, 
before  Dr.  Ogilby  and  myself  was  far  better  than  the  average.  But 
he  had  when  very  young,  when  away  from  the  sanctions  of  his 
missionary  home  in  India,  fallen  into  Roman  society  and  influence ; 
and,  like  many  others,  betrayed  himself  into  joining  the  Roman 
Church.  Much  doubting,  never  cordial  or  content  in  his  new  de- 
cision, he  was  led  by  a  minister  of  the  advanced  school  to  reconsider 
the  subject.  The  very  strong  opposition  to  the  supremacy  of  the 
Pope,  and  to  the  infallibility  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  which  that 
school  makes,  and  which  they  study  with  special  care  and  sturdily 
press  up,  soon  told  upon  the  young  man.  He  would  have  been  safer 
under  the  roof  of  the  Seminary,  and  under  the  tender  protection  and 
guidance  of  the  Dean.  No  umbrage  would  have  been  given  as,  by 
the  refusal,  evidently  was  to  the  Bishop  of  New  York,  who  had  sent 
him  to  us.  The  young  man  was  introduced  by  the  Dean  to  Dr. 
Seabury,  as  one  who  had  left  Rome  to  go  no  further  away  than  the 
advanced  church  which  he  attended.  His  request  was  not  granted. 
Not  only  was  the  application  refused,  but  new  rules  were  adopted 
which  prevented  the  application  of  persons  desiring  this  preparatory 
privilege.  The  Rev.  Dr.  Van  Kleeck  brought  his  son,  who  had  been 
a  student  of  law  but  had  decided  to  study  Divinity  in  the  Seminary, 
to  apply  for  the  privilege  in  the  same  way.  The  new  rule  excluded 
him.  Under  the  old  practice  both  would  have  been  allowed,  and  to 
both  would  the  advantage  of  a  better  culture  have  been  secured. 
The  young  man  who  had  renounced  Romanism  had  to  study  privately 
under  many  disadvantages.  The  Bishop  of  New  York  did  not  en- 
courage him  to  enter  the  unwelcoming  institution.  I  do  not  know 
enough  of  him  to  pronounce  concerning  his  later  preparation,  but  the 
Rt.  Rev.  the  Bishop  of  Nassau  ordained  him,  and  employs  him  as 
his  Deacon.  Now  on  all  these  cases,  when  they  came  up,  Dr.  Seymour 
and  myself  harmonized.  We  stood  on  the  old  seminary  ground,  and 
considered  the  new  position  and  the  manner  and  treatment  consequent, 

*  He  afterwards  served  with  credit  as  a  Presbyter  in  the  Diocese  of  Florida;  and 
is  now  a  missionary  in  India  in  the  employ  of  the  S.  P.  G. 


11 

an  initiation  of  a  new,  narrow  and  unwise  policy.  I  say  zue,  for  I  had 
the  valued  privilege  of  speech  in  the  Faculty,  though  I  had  not  the 
right  of  vote. 

The  next  chief  cause  of  troubles  was  the  strong  feeling  of  the 
Professors  in  personal  opposition  to  Professor  Seymour,  which  led 
them,  so  to  speak,  to  corner  him  and  not  allow  his  position  to  be 
defined.  The  majority  were  steadily  against  him,  he  could  find  no 
courtesy  extended  to  second  any  motion  he  might  make.  No  liberty 
was  allowed  him  to  present  his  view  upon  the  minutes.  We  had 
formerly  sat  at  Faculty  meetings  as  a  company  of  four  friends,  and 
what  either  wished  was  naturally  allowed.  But  now  the  four  were 
stiffened  into  a  formal  legal  body,  and  the  Professor  of  Law  appealed 
to  Parliamentary  and  General  Convention  laws  of  order,  and  with 
consent  enforced  them.  Dr.  Seymour  always  speaks  with  intensity, 
and  fearlessly  expresses  his  ideas  even  when  not  expecting  the  sup- 
port of  the  majority.  Perhaps  they  took  offence  at  the  quality — 
perhaps  at  the  manner.  But  his  admirers  love  him  for  his  truthful- 
ness, and  rejoice  in  his  outspoken  candor.  Just  as  I  honor  my  old 
classmate,  the  Rev.  William  Shelton,  D.D.,  for  his  grand  hearty 
pronouncement,  so  I  who  love  and  honor  both,  rejoice  in  the  reality 
and  freshness  and  vigor  of  each.  I  said  to  my  friend  of  long,  long  years, 
who  educated  me  in  theological  thought  more  than  any  other  man, 
whdse  name  I  commended  from  the  pulpit  to  my  congregation  of 
St.  John's  Church,  Brooklyn,  as  the  candidate  for  the  Episco- 
pate of  New  York,  and  when  the  election  was  evidently  to  be 
decided  in  favor  of  Bishop  Wainwright,  gave  my  closing  vote 
for  him,  exclaiming  that  I  would  go  down  with  his  name  nailed  to 
my  mast — I  mean  the  Rev.  Samuel  Seabury,  by  whose  ancient  teach- 
ing I  abide — I  said  to  him,  "  Doctor,  Seymour  resembles  Bishop 
Hobart  more  than  any  clergyman  I  ever  met  with ;  now  could  you 
ever  imagine  that  Bishop  Hobart  would  have  submitted  to  such 
cornering }  You  know  it  would  have  been  impossible.  He  would 
leap  over  the  wall."  It  was  thus  that  Dr.  Seymour  made  his  case 
known  to  the  Trustees  by  appending  his  own  neglected  resolutions 
to  his  Professor  Report,  and  afterwards  penned  and  had  printed  all 
his  history  of  various  transactions,  and  his  general  and  particular 
views.  Just  so  Bishop  Hobart  published  appeal  after  appeal  in  large 
pamphlets,  in  individual  controversies,  and  on  theological  and  ecclesi- 
astical questions.  I  might  have  added  how  impossible  it  had  been 
of  old  to  bind  the  strong  arms  of  T/w  Churchman  in  any  such 
manner.  The  Editor  was  not  only  the  champion  of  the  advance 
movement  of  old,  but  he  was  just  as  able  and  just  as  resolute  to  be 
the  champion  of  himself.  The  case  I  am  about  to  refer  to  had  its 
parallels  with  Dr.  Seymour's. 


12 

When  Dr.  Seabury  was  a  teacher  in  the  General  Theological 
Seminary,  in  charge  of  The  Evidences^  he  was  also  the  Editor. 
Writing  some  elaborate  views  about  the  Generality  of  the  Redemp- 
tion, the  universal  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  sufficiently  to  become  a 
basis  for  probation,  and  the  consequent  salvability  of  the  heathen — 
views  certainly  in  accordance  with  our  most  approved  Divines,  both 
our  own  Bishops  White  and  Hobart,  as  well  as  great  theologians  of 
England's  Church — he  found  himself  unexpectedly  assailed  (and 
perhaps  in  some  side  statements  he  may  have  been  vulnerable)  by 
one  of  the  regular  Professors  of  the  Seminary ;  I  rather  think  he  was 
the  Dean  at  the  time,  certainly  a  very  leading  and  influential  Pro- 
fessor. It 'seemed  too  that  the  Faculty  rather  stood  on  the  part  of 
the  powerful  assailant.  He  was  charged  with  Heresy.  And  the 
voice  of  condemnation  seemed  the  voice  of  the  majestic  Seminary 
itself,  although  certain  ones  regretted  the  attack  had  been  made. 
Did  he  allow  himself  to  be  enclosed  with  the  net,  or  quietly  to 
surrender  .'*  Not  for  a  moment.  Witness  the  page  of  the  old  Church- 
man at  its  next  issue,  where  he  pronounces  that  he  has  the  truth  on 
his  side,  that  '"''The  General  Theological  Sefninary  is  in  Heresy!!" 
all  spread  out  in  large  staring  letters  on  the  open  page. 

If  any  question  arises  as  to  Dr.  Seymour's  pamphlet  or  Dr. 
Seabury's  pronouncement,  am  I  to  blame  if  I  stood  with  Seabury 
then  as  I  do  with  Seymour  now  ?  I  look  upon  the  pronouncement 
and  the  pamphlet  as  almost  inevitable  products  of  the  strength  and 
fearlessness  of  the  assailed,  and  the  induced  circumstances  which 
surrounded  them. 

Some  criticism  has  been  passed  upon  the  accuracy  of  the  state- 
ments made  in  certain  instances  by  Dr.  Seymour  in  his  printed 
pamphlet,  to  a  portion  of  which  I  had  given  in  my  name  as  witness. 
It  is  seldom  in  a  long  history  that  some  person  may  not  make  an 
opportunity  to  raise  exceptions.  The  writer  himself  is  abundantly 
able  to  give  explanations'or  to  prove  his  assertion  when  needed,  as 
he  did  so  emphatically  in  the  fly  leaf  which  he  added  to  his  pamphlet, 
on  a  statement  of  his  which  was  denied.  In  the  portion  attested  by 
myself,  I  have  only  this  to  say,  it  was  drawn  up  by  Dr.  Seymour 
within  a  very  few  days  of  the  transactions,  while  the  whole  was  fresh 
to  my  memory,  and  I  deemed  it  to  tally  with  all  that  had  occurred. 
In  the  instance  excepted.  Dr.  Seymour  had  opposed  a  certain  phrase 
in  a  resolution,  and  argued  at  length  against  it.  In  the  turn  of  the 
discussion  he  consented  to  the  necessity  of  the. adoption,  as  it  left 
the  resolution  more  in  his  hands  and  under  his  shaping.  Y{&,allowea 
a  defeat  in  the  left  wing  to  save  the  centre  and  the  right.  Thus  he 
did  not  state  in  his  pamphlet  the  literal  fact  that  the  objectionable 
word  was  adopted  by  all.     I  who  knew  how  he  had  opposed  and 


13 

argued  was  impressed  by  the  substantial  reaHty  more  than  the  mere 
formal  expression.  Technically  correct,  unanimity  was  substantially 
absent  nevertheless.  It  is  a  case  where  an  acute  pleader  might  put 
in  an  exception,  but  where  judicial  experience  would  waive  it. 

If  the  question  is  put  whether  the  Seminary  was  better  off  under 
the  old  arrangement,  where  a  resident  Professor  was  Dean,  my 
opinion  is  decidedly  in  favor  of  the  old.  True,  the  duty  of  the  year 
was  much  more  oppressive  to  the  Professor  Dean,  and  the  office  was 
attended  with  indirect  expenses  not  inconsiderable.  A  thousand 
dollars  should  have  been  added  to  the  annual  income  of  the  Pro- 
fessor who  held  it.  But  this  Professor  was  one  who  met  the  classes 
daily,  who  listened  to  the  recitations  of  the  individual  students,  who 
solved  their  questions,  directed  their  researches,  visited  them  in  their 
rooms,  met  them  in  the  library,  talked  with  them  about  books, 
occasionally  attended  their  debates,  learned  from  themselves  and 
chiefly  from  others  their  history,  their  circumstances,  their  occasional 
necessities.  Familiarity  thus  insensibly  grew  up — not  such  as  breeds 
contempt,  but  such  as  created  mutual  sympathy  and  respect.  The 
Dean  being  then  a  resident,  of  course  took  his  regular  turn  in 
all  devotional  services  and  discourses,  such  as  religiously  win  and 
favorably  aff"ect  the  student  mind.  But  besides  his  turn  in  order,  he 
felt  inclined  to  be  present  on  such  occasions  habitually.  If  a  student 
were  delinquent  in  attendance  it  was  named  to  the  Dean  at  the  meet- 
ing of  the  Faculty,  or  if  he  failed  in  just  mastery  of  his  studies.  A 
mere  occasional  absence  or  failure  was  not  deemed  worthy  of  dis- 
cipline; for  much  should  justly  be  left  to  the  judgment  and  con- 
science of  religious  young  men,  approved  as  candidates  for  Holy 
Orders,  soon  to  be  ministers  of  the  Gospel.  They  were  not  col- 
legians to  be  called  before  the  board,  but  friends  and  sons  to  be 
counselled,  to  be  directed,  to  be  lovingly  appealed  to,  to  be  entreated 
even.  I  only  speak  for  myself,  but  I  had  an  unusual  share  of  the 
Dean's  alternate  offices,  resulting  from  the  sickness  or  absence  of 
the  others.  When  I  had  a  case  of  discipline  I  went  as  a  friend  to 
the  student's  room,  and  tried  to  weave  in  at  some  fortunate  turn  of 
the  conversation  the  disagreeable  subject.  Seldom  did  I  find  an 
impracticable  case,  or  leave  myself  or  the  student  in  an  off'ensive 
attitude.  I  remember  but  one  instance  where  I  lost  a  worthy 
student's  love,  and  that  was  not  a  case  of  discipline,  but  a  private 
difference  and  individual  irritability  of  my  own  where  I  deemed  the 
Seminary  injured. 

Now  I  ask  not  who  is  or  shall  be  the  Dean,  under  existing  circum- 
stances it  must  come  to  the  same  thing ;  never  meeting  the  students 
in  any  of  those  exercises  which  reveal  the  temper  and  the  faculty  of 
the  man  ;  seldom  appearing  before   them  in  any  of  those  positions 


14 

which  interest  and  win  the  mind ;  present  as  a  visitor  to  his  Dean's 
room  five  mornings  of  the  week,  and  that  mainly  at  hours  when  the 
Recitations  are  going  on,  or  the  hour  or  two  before  when  the  study 
in  preparation  has  to  be  most  exacting — it  is,  I  say,  impossible 
that  the  Dean  of  the  new  arrangement  can  be  equal  to  the  Dean  of 
the  olden  time.  He  does  not,  he  cannot,  come  in  contact  with  the 
lines  of  real  effectual  influence  and  government.  Even  if  by  an  apti- 
tude for  commanding  he  may  reprove  and  direct  firmly,  he  cannot  be 
the  father  in  the  family  of  sons.  The  powerful  element  of  love  is  too 
largely  absent.  There  is  only  the  officer,  warning,  examining, 
punishing — dignified  in  attitude,  severe.  I  did  not  think  the  result 
fortunate  the  year  I  was  in  the  Seminary,  as  now  arranged.  Since 
then  I  have  been  but  an  occasional  visitor,  and  only  at  evening 
prayer.  The  attendance  was  less  than  of  old.  The  preaching  ser- 
vices are  less.  The  Holy  Communions  are  less.  I  was  not  struck 
with  any  superiority  in  the  public  examinations  which  indicated  that 
the  students  had  been  more  interested  in  pursuing  their  studies.  In 
one  thing,  however,  a  decided  and  evident  improvemenc  was  made, 
viz.,  in  attendance  upon  Recitations.  The  Professors  were  required 
to  give  to  the  Dean  monthly  reports  of  attendance,  and  those  who 
were  reported  as  absent  on  any  given  day  or  hour  were  summoned 
by  the  Dean  from  the  class  room  by  a  list  of  the  names  to  be  called 
out  by  the  Professor.  I  could  not  help  but  feel  deeply  for  the  pre- 
siding officer,  whose  almost  sole  business  in  the  Seminary  was  dis- 
cipline. I  said  to  myself,  who  of  us  could  stand  so  painful  a  test,  or 
be  comfortable  to  others  or  himself.'  But  students,  knowing  they 
were  held  responsible  for  attendance  each  separate  hour,  did  attend 
more  faithfully.  They  preferred  to  bear  their  private  exactions  and 
put  up  with  personal  inconveniences  and  attend,  rather  than  meet 
the  Dean  in  his  room  as  accused  or  offenders. 

When  the  Dean  first  met  the  Faculty,  he  made  some  admirable 
and  feeling  remarks  upon  the  chief  duty  which  he  felt  belonged  to 
his  more  special  care.  "  He  had  nothing  to  do  in  the  Recitations, 
and  he  hoped  to  bestow  his  chief  care  upon  individual  students,  to 
have  them  unbosom  themselves  to  him  with  the  most  entire  con- 
fidence, to  be  directed  in  the  way  of  sanctity  and  a  higher  life." 
The  students  had  by  their  own  request,  Ananimous  almost,  asked  the 
Faculty  over  two  years  before  for  the  privilege  of  a  weekly  Com- 
munion on  the  Sunday.  As  many  had  to  attend  the  superintendence 
of  Sunday  schools  at  a  distance  at  9  o'clock,  the  hour  of  the  holy 
service  had  to  be  an  early  one.  Later  hours  were  tried  and  failed, 
and  it  settled  habitually  at  6  or  half-past  6,  I  forget  which.  The 
Faculty  did  not  act  upon  the  request,  for  one  was  sick  and  another 
engaged,  and  so  they  said  if  any  one  chose  to  attend  to  it  the  way 


15 

was  open.  Dr.  Seymour  and  myself  attended  for  a  time,  and  then 
the  early  service  at  the  House  of  Mercy  where  he  was  Chaplain 
interfered,  and  the  welcome  privilege  fell  on  me,  I  being  free  from 
other  Sunday  exactions  except  on  a  few  occasions.  When  the  sub- 
ject was  introduced  in  the  Faculty,  the  Dean  was  unfriendly  to  it, 
and  urged  its  abandonment,  arguing  that  in  the  Roman  Church  they 
did  not  have  frequent  Communion,  though  they  had  mass  very 
frequently  indeed  with  their  idea  of  sacrifice.  Even  their  devotees 
did  not  receive  more  than  once  a  month  or  so.  Dr.  Seabury  said  he 
was  in  favor  of  frequent  Communion,  but  not  where  it  was  evidently 
impracticable,  ag  it  would  be  when  my  retirement,  which  we  then 
thought  immediately  impending,  should  take  place.  Dr.  Seymour 
said  he  would  take  the  responsibility  of  the  duty,  but  could  not 
officiate  himself.  But  the  Dean  thought  it  unadvisable  to  introduce 
clergymen  from  without,  some  imprudences  having  already  excited 
remark,  resulting  from  occasional  supplies.  Here  I  could  not  but 
lament  in  my  own  mind  that  the  non-residence  of  the  Dean  com- 
pelled the  disuse  of  this  weekly  celebration,  even  in  a  religious  house, 
not  of  laymen  but  of  candidates  for  the  ministry — a  sacred  honie 
where  the  level  of  religious  privilege  and  devotion  ought  to  be  far 
higher  than  in  a  common  mixed  congregation.  I  lamented  that  the 
Dean  would  find  that  he  could  not  succeed  in  carrying  out  his  devout 
intentions  while  the  Holy  Eucharist  was  seldom  celebrated — while  it 
was  thus  even  interrupted  and  discontinued.  But  it  was  hard  to  say 
how  it  could  be  otherwise.  The  Dean  in  the  Seminary  resident  could 
have  met  the  case  at  once,  and  his  superintendence  could  have  pro- 
tected from  all  practices  he  deemed  questionable. 

As  this  early  celebration  has  been  made  the  subject  of  much 
remark — as  some  students  who  never  or  seldom  attended  it  made 
charges  of  extreme  Ritual,  without  just  knowledge,  rather  as  a 
demonstration  against  Ritualism  than  with  a  more  particular  aim, 
and  as  I  was  the  one  who  regularly  celebrated — I  will  take  this 
opportunity  to  say  that  the  service  was  of  the  simplest  kind.  I  wore 
my  plain  bla-ck  citizen's  dress ;  I  had  neither  cassock  nor  clerical 
coat ;  I  used  the  surplices  of  the  Seminary  with  the  plain  black  stole- 
to  meet  a  scruple  of  the  Professor  of  Pastoral  Theology,  I  used  to 
give  a  very  short  sermon  which  I  called  a  sermonette.  I  did  nothing 
which  any  could  question,  except  that  I  considered  the  frontage  of 
the  altar  the  important  part  at  which  the  officiating  priest  ,should 
stand,  and  that  to  move  around  to  the  ends  was  not  in  itself  so 
proper,  though  custom  makes  it  sufficiently  excusable,  so  resolved  by 
high  judicial  statement  and  by  the  ordinary  arguments  used  to  sustain 
it.  I  read  the  Ante-Communion  at  the  right  side  of  the  frontage. 
My  face  was  towards  the  people  in  the  Commandments,  Gospel  and 


16 

Epistle,  Exhortations  and  the  like ;  towards  the  Holy  Table  in  ttie 
Prayers.  I  observed  lately  that  Professor  Francis  Vinton,  whose 
department  is  the  Church's  latti,  did  exactly  as  I  did.  The  students 
did  not  rise  at  presenting  the  Offertory  till  the  last  year.  After  the 
Pan  Anglican  Council  I  gave  up  the  opinion  that  the  Sermon  might 
be  maintained  as  necessary,  and  then  seldom  if  ever  wrote  my 
sermonette.  For  as  one  who  had  attended  the  Council  was  relating 
all  the  circumstances  there,  the  question  was  publicly  asked,  and  in 
reference  to  the  very  doubt  before  noted,  "  On  their  regular  daily 
early  Communion,  held  during  the  Council,  did  they  use  the  Morning 
Prayer  before  it.?"  The  answer  was  ^^ No."  "Did  they  have  a 
Sermon.?"  The  answer  again  was  "iV^?."  So  I  deemed  the  Council 
use  a  sufficient  authority  to  give  me  freedom  of  choice.  And  even 
the  last  Seminary  Professor  had  interpreted  the  Rubric  that  this  was 
simply  the  place  where  a  Sermon  should  come  in  if  there  was  one. 
So  I  presume  no  fault  could  be  found  with  the  Seminary  practice 
here.  Though  interpreters  might  differ,  the  question  was  an  open 
one.  But  sometimes  Professor  Seymour  officiated,  and  his  method 
was  like  mine,  except  that  as  in  Morning  Prayer  for  all  "  distressed 
in  mind,  body  or  estate,"  he  made  a  brief  pause  as  if  recalling  some 
individuals  in  whose  sorrows  he  sympathised,  so  after  some  such 
sentence  he  did  the  same.  It  was  hardly  noticeable,  but  brought 
home  to  our  feelings  a  touch  of  sympathy.  Three  times  three  young 
Presbyters  took  my  place  when  absent ;  one  resided  at  the  time  in 
my  house,  the  other  two  in  the  city.  I  knew  nothing  of  any  peculi- 
arities used  by  them.  But  a  new  occasion  arose  when  I  acted  simply 
according  to  my  best  judgment.  The  Rev.  Son  of  our  late  presiding 
Bishop  wished  to  present  to  the  Seminary  for  use  two  costly  memorial 
metallic  candlesticks,  to  his  venerable  father's  honor,  and  first  to  give 
them  as  an  offering  at  the  altar.  He  was  to  present  them  by  his  own 
hand,  and  lighted  as' more  significant.  Mistaking  the  hour  he  came 
too  late.  I  received  the  candlesticks  with  lighted  candles  in  them, 
and  placed  them  upon  the  Holy  Table  as  I  did  the  alms.  The  next 
Sunday  I  was  absent,  and  one  of  the  young  students,  seeing  the 
candlesticks  on  the  Faculty  room  table,  where  they  were  placed  for 
a  while  that  friends  might  see  them,  made  a  mistake  and  brought 
them  in  again.  But  after  the  service  was  concluded  on  the  first 
morning,  I  had  taken  the  special  pains  to  inform  the  students  at  the 
desk  publicly  that  these  were  presented  as  any  other  offering,  and  not 
as  the  introduction  of  them  for  use  in  the  Sanctuary.  During  the 
last  year  the  students  present  adopted  the  usage  of  rising  as  the  alms 
and  oblations  were  presented.  This  the  Dean  shortly  after  his 
entrance  upon  his  duties  reproved  and  forbad.  Some  continuing  to 
rise  upon  an  occasion  of  Communion  in  the  Chapel,  the  reproof  ot 


17 

the  Dean  was  again  repeated,  and  with  uncommon  severity.  The 
subject  was  discussed  in  a  very  friendly  way  in  the  Dean's  room  one 
day  when  I  was  present,  with  the  Scottish  Liturgy  and  the  opinion  of 
the  House  of  Bishops  as  to  proper  postures.  Sentiments  varied.  / 
thought  our  Bishops  had  recommended  kneeling  by  the  expression 
that  when  no  other  posture  was  ordered  kneeling  was  understood  to 
be  the  posture.  The  Dean  courteously  allowed  my  kneeling ;  but 
he  thought  the  rising  at  that  point  of  time  was  an  interruption  to 
peaceful  devotion,  and  that  it  was  a  novelty  in  our  practice,  and  that 
the  movement  of  the  presenting  was  in  the  prayer  for  Christ's 
Church  Militant. 

One  of  the  Trustees  addressed  me  not  very  long  ago  to  this 
effect,  that  the  Dean  had  found  things  very  extreme  in  our  Seminary 
communion,  and  that  they  had  even  introduced  the  wafer  bread  of 
Rome.  For  over  two  years  while  still  at  housekeeping  in  the  Semi- 
nary, I  had  the  elements  prepared  in  my  own  family,  and  the  bread 
was  prepared  in  the  usual  way.  It  continued  so  afterwards,  till  cer- 
tain of  the  young  men  undertook  the  care  of  the  elements.  Then 
at  last,  for  about  a  month  the  bread  was  compressed  so  as  to  prevent 
its  crumbling,  I  made  some  remark  about  it,  but  took  no  order,  as 
our  new  Pastoral  head  was  so  soon  to  be  upon  the  ground,  and  the 
compression  was  not  severe.  Here  I  must  be  pardoned  for  explain- 
ing certain  impressions  existing  in  the  Seminary  at  this  time  as  bear- 
ing on  this  point.  Our  Dean  came  in  regarded  by  others  in  various 
lights.  Some  thought,  that  under  his  special  experience  he  was  the 
safe  guide  to  protect  the  young  men  against  dangers  from  Rome. 
Some  went  still  further,  and  reported  him  as  so  disgusted  with 
Rome,  that  he  would  lead  in  the  opposite  extreme  ;  while  others,  of 
the  advanced  school,  or  with  tendencies  that  way,  claimed  him  as 
thoroughly  their  own  ;  that  he  favored  the  confessional,  that  those 
clergy  who  desired  to  confess  sought  him  out,  that  when  father  Pres- 
cott  left  for  Europe  he  received  from  him  absolution  and  went  from 
him  with  his  benediction.  Of  the  Trustees,  the  high  and  low,  both 
of  Bishops,  presbyters,  and  laymen,  united  on  him  each  with  differing 
persuasion.  Dr.  Seabury  himself  told  me  that  he  had  no  idea  which 
course  he  would  decide  to  take.  The  young  men  with  whom  he  af- 
terwards had  difficulties,  imagined  that  he  would  be  pleased  with 
their  every  demonstration,  and  with  every  view  which  they  were  ac- 
customed to  favor.  He  had  renounced  Papal  authority  they  said, 
but  he  preserved  the  ideas  which  were  catholic;  at  the  communion 
which  he  soon  celebrated,  under  these  feelings  doubtless,  they  treat- 
ed him  to  their  best. 

But  it  is  not  just  to  think,  that  either  Dr.  Seymour  or  myself  were 
committed  with   them,  or  that  we  had  a  service  which  was  at  all  ex- 


18 

treme.  We  were  not  low,  of  course,  or  radical,  but  we  were  modefate 
and  undemonstrative.  We  did  not  have  the  elements  placed  on  the 
holy  table  but  on  the  prothesis.  We  did  not  set  the  paten  with  the 
consecrated  bread  upon  the  floor  as  occasion  chanced.  We  did  not 
leave  the  elements  unconsumed,  but  reverently  partook  of  them. 
But  our  custom  was  such  as  generally  prevailed  in  our  New  York 
established  congregations  known  as  churchly  and  conservative. 

Thus  perhaps  the  Dean  received  impressions  which  were  not 
justified  by  our  past  general  practices.  Indeed  we  had  gone  so  far 
as  to  direct  two  or  three  who  received  otherwise  to  receive  the  cup 
"into  their  hands,"  although  the  touch  by  the  lips  was  and  is  quite 
extensively  the  case  in  many  churches  near  us ;  and  though  ritualists 
of  reputation  interpret  that  direction  as  applying  only  to  the  bread. 
We  wished  not  to  commit  the  Seminary  to  a  questionable  practice. 

Having  thus  endeavored  to  clear  this  three  years'  service  of  early 
communion  from  popular  mistakes,  I  will  add  that  the  young  men 
of  the  advanced  school  soon  found  out  their  mistake.  The  Dean 
has  been  consistent  throughout.  He  declined  to  receive  their  con- 
fessions unless  there  might  be  some  special  grief.  He  let  the  weekly 
communion  be  given  up.  He  discouraged  early  communions  as  in- 
terfering with  the  noon  communions  on  the  first  Sunday  of  the 
month.  He  thoroughly  opposed  the  idea  of  communicating  fasting. 
Especially  was  he  zealous  against  every  doctrinal  statement  which 
he  considered  unprotestant.  If  any  person  retains  a  prejudice 
against  him,  as  inclining  to  Roman  ways,  it  is  entirely  unfounded. 
I  would  rather  imagine  the  tendency  to  be,  from  the  very  nature  of 
a  great  reaction,  towards  the  opposite  extreme.  He  has  perfect  lib- 
erty in  that  direction,  nor  has  any  one  a  right  to  watch,  or  suspect, 
question  or  censure.  Only  the  liberty  which  the  Church  allows  we 
claim  for  others  as  well  as  ourselves  ;  and  for  candidates  in  their 
studies  and  inquiries,  as  well  as  for  clergymen.  If  Bishop  Ken's 
pronouncement  be  approved,  we  have  a  right  to  see  where  it  will  lead 
us.  For  myself  I  have  never  presumed  to  go  so  far.  But  if  the 
eloquent  prelate  who  asserted  it  should,  I  would  not  dare  to  say  to 
him  "  nay  ;"  or  to  suspect  //////  of  Romanizing.  I  have  that  firm 
faith  in  him.     And  he  would  have  a  right  to  his  position. 

One  other  difficulty  occurred  in  the  Seminary  in  which  we  were 
all  interested,  but  in  which  Dr.  Seymour  and  myself  differed  from  the 
Dean  and  the  Professors.  Of  all  occasions  in  life  the  Ordination  of 
the  candidate  for  Holy  Orders  is  the  most  solemn  :  he  is  to  assume 
a  responsibility  for  himself,  and  a  great  spiritual  trust  for  others. 
The  Seminary  neither  of  old  nor  now  has  properly  provided  for  the 
time.  The  fearful  charges  of  Bishop  Wilberforce  used  as  a  text 
book  in   the  course,  overwhelm   the  soul  with  dread.     But  Ember 


19 

days,  and  ordinations  pass  unnoticed  and  unimproved  by  any  special 
retirement,  confidential  council  or  unbosoming  or  other  than  the 
common  devotion. 

I  take  my  share  of  blame  for  the  neglect,  and  am  ashamed  as  I 
look  back  upon  the  past,  that  no  attempt  was  made  at  improvement 
here. 

A  short  time  before  the  proposed  ordination,  two  presbyters,  re- 
cognized to  be  of  the  advanced  or  Catholic  school,  invited  several 
of  the  Seniors  and  as  many  as  would  come  to  a  three  days'  meeting 
for  prayer  and  holy  communion,  in  special  reference  to  their  spirit- 
ual preparation  for  ordination.  At  the  time,  the  Seniors  were 
relieved  from  recitations  and  their  predecessors  had  been  accustom- 
ed under  such  authoritative  exemption  to  consider  themselves  free 
in  the  use  of  their  hours.  I  have  known  them  to  retire  without  re- 
proof to  the  New  Jersey  or  Long  Island  shores,  and  shut  themselves 
up  to  prepare  for  their  approaching  Seminary  and  Canonical  Exam- 
inations. This  Devotional  Recess  was  popularly  called  a  Retreat. 
Most  of  those  who  went  had  consulted  their  Bishop  or  their  Pastor. 
But  they  did  not  consult  Dean  or  Professors.  When  this  was  discov- 
ered, by  the  letter  of  a  Presbyter  in  the  vicinity,  the  Faculty  were 
suddenly  summoned,  the  action  was  considered  very  offensive,  and 
severe  resolutions  of  censure  were  passed  ;  and  without  any  informa- 
tion of  the  nature  of  the  offence,  their  Bishops  were  instructed  by 
the  letter  of  the  Dean  that  by  a  unanimous  vote  these  their  candi- 
dates had  incurred  the  censure  of  the  Faculty,  leaving  them  under  un- 
happy suspicions  of  immorality  or  crime.  I  was  in  the  midst  of  the 
scene  at  home,  and  it  was  perfectly  evident,  that  the  displeasure  of 
the  Dean  and  Professors  Vvas  not  on  account  of  absence  from  meals, 
or  from  the  morning  and  evening  prayer,  for  they  themselves  were 
absent  too ;  but  because  they  considered  the  two  Presbyters  who  had 
invited  them  to  be  dangerous  men,  and  disloyal  to  Protestantism. 

Now  had  they  met  this  point  fairly  and  squarely,  it  would  I 
think  have  been  the  true  course.  But  here  difficulties  met  them. 
The  Presbyters  were  in  good  Canonical  standing.  There  was  no 
law  forbidding  a  special  devotion,  nay  that  seemed  almost  a  duty, 
certainly  a  spiritual  propriety  before  ordination.  They  could  not 
interfere  with  the  students  for  placing  themselves  under  other  minis- 
ters of  the  Church,  for  the  Seminary  had  no  provision  whatever  for 
the  Lord's  day,  and  so  the  students  were  universally  understood  to 
be  subject  to  their  rectors  and  regular  pastors  whose  ministry  they 
attended.  They  knew  that  had  they  attended  a  series  of  devotions 
under  the  Rev.  Dr.  Muhlenberg,  they  would  never  have  been  cen- 
sured. Then  another  issue  was  made.  Whatever  old  usages  might 
plead,  or  the  student's    own    impression    might  excuse,  it  was   seen 


20 

that  by  the  customary  wording  of  the  resokition,  the  Senior  Class 
was  excused  from  Recitations^  so  they  were  brought  forward  under 
the  charge  of  absence  from  Morning  and  Evening  Prayer  without 
leave.  Technically  by  statute  they  were  found  guilty  on  this  point. 
They  were  not  tried,  nor  questioned,  that  their  course  might  be  un- 
derstood or  excused,  or  be  capable  of  harmless  construction.  The 
censure  passed.  Their  Bishops  were  immediately  notified.  Till 
the  explanation  could  reach  them,  their  pastor  and  friends  and 
even  i|Bishop  suffered  under  cruel  misconstructions,  which  two  lines 
of  kind  and  generous  statement  would  have  relieved.  To  add  to 
the  unreality  of  the  charge,  there  were  others  who  had  absented 
themselves  for  a  longer  time  without  leave,  who  had  gone  for  mere 
refreshment  or  social  intercourse,  and  these  were  excused  immedi- 
ately, while  the  others  were  held  under  the  censure.  I  may  be  dull 
in  clear,  moral  and  spiritual  perception  ;  but  I  think  that  a  few  years 
hence,  the  memory  of  this  transaction  will  to  some  seem  to  partake 
of  the  amusing,  to  others  of  shame,  and  to  all  of  surprise. 

There  was  another  case  of  discipline,  which  I  know  would  have 
been  more  tenderly  and  indulgently  managed  under  the  former  days. 
A  young  candidate  of  New  Jersey  had  been  a  teacher  in  De  Veaux 
College,  Western  New  York,  and  had  gained  there  a  healthful  influ- 
ence umong  the  pupils.  A  disturbed  condition  of  the  pupils  had 
arisen,  the  assistant  teachers  had  left,  the  Rev.  Principal  at  the  head 
of  the  Institution  was  alone.  The  case  required  delicate  manage- 
ment and  an  experienced  hand.  In  his  distress  the  Principal  tele- 
graphed his  old  assistant,  our  student.  It  was  our  Recess,  Christ- 
mas, I  think.  The  student  entreated  to  come  to  the  rescue  went  on 
immediately.  He  was  so  necessary  just  for  a  short  while,  that  he  was 
prevailed  upon  to  stay  after  his  recess  had  ended,  and  to  write  to  the 
Seminary  requesting  leave  of  absence  for  a  brief  stated  time.  The 
reply,  justly  enough,  refused  the  request.  Then  the  Principal  wrote 
urging  it  anew.  The  Faculty  meanwhile  met,  and  after  the  Dean's 
statement,  requested  the  Dean  to  inform  the  pupil's  Bishop  of  the 
absence  which  had  been  only,  however,  for  a  few  days.  The  letter 
was  sent  to  the  Bishop  barely  stating  the  disobedience,  as  absence 
without  leave,  and  the  non-compliance  with  the  order  to  return.  No 
word  explaining  the  history  A^as  given,  no  possible  construction  was 
intimated  qualifying  the  guilt.  It  was  only  holding  up  a  criminal  to 
a  Judge.  Down  came  instant  the  Bishop's  strong  arm  upon  the 
offender.  Then  followed  letter  upon  letter  to  the  Bishop  from  the 
venerable  Dr.  Wm.  Shelton,  from  the  presiding  head  of  the  Institu- 
tion, from  Presbyters  who  knew  the  history,  and  the  worthiness  of 
the  man,  deprecating  punishment,  and  affectionately  interceding. 
The  student    retired    from  the  General    Seminary,  and    when  he  re- 


31 

Sumed  his  theological  course,  he  entered  a  Diocesan  Theological 
Seminary  of  reputation  not  far  away.  I  understand  that  he  is  a 
young  man  of  more  than  ordinary  promise.  What  I  would  observe 
is,  that  under  the  old  arrangements,  the  treatment  would  have  been 
more  paternal.  When  we  consider  that  a  Bishop  has  the  power  to 
erase  the  name  of  a  candidate  from  his  list,  and  it  cannot  be  legally 
restored  without  going  through  the  formal  renewal  of  the  canonical 
testimonials  and  application,  and  that  application  subject  to  the  doubt 
and  disparagement  resulting  from  the  former  erasing,  we  can  easily 
understand  that  the  interests  of  the  candidate  ought  to  be  very  consider- 
ately handled  ;  and  that  even  if  we  know  that  the  letter  of  a  statute  has 
been  violated,  there  are  principles  of  justice  and  kindness  which 
underlie  statute  itself,  and  give  its  main  dignity  and  obligation.  Tne 
Lawgiver  is  greater  than  His  law.  I  mention  this  case  to  show  there 
may  be  more  discipline  and  yet  nothing  gained  by  it.  In  matters  of 
minor  regulation  there  must,  of  course,  be  many  things  liable  to  be 
omitted  or  mistaken  when  a  new  person  unaccustomed  to  the  life  of 
the  Seminary  comes  in  to  take  charge — things  which  a  resident  in  the 
Seminary  would  have  known  almost  unconsciously — matters  of  detail 
which  can  be  learned  by  a  new  incumbent  only  by  literal  enquiry 
made  and  information  given.  Such  is  the  knowledge  about  the 
Scholarships  of  the  Seminary,  and  the  appropriations  made  by  the 
New  York  Society  for  Promoting  Religion  and  Learning,  and  the 
Society  for  the  Increase  of  the  Ministry,  and  Diocesan  Arrange- 
ments and  Assistances.  This  knowledge  and  the  practical  aid  of 
the  students  is  apt  to  run  into  certain  channels,  and  to  fall  into 
certain  hands.  But  all  the  necessary  information  can  be  easily 
gathered  up.  The  preparation  and  distribution  of  the  Seminary 
catalogues  is  a  matter  involving  many  troublesome  items,  which  call 
for  exact  accuracy.  The  Dean  and  a  student  from  each  class  attend 
to  the  particulars,  the  former  directing,  investigating,  and  carefully 
reading  the  latest  proof-sheets.  Sometimes  an  evident  erratum 
creeps  in,  which  requires  closest  study  of  the  former  lists  and  of  the 
matriculation  book.  I  remember  cases  where  the  tax  on  time  was 
severe,  involving  very  late  work,  far  beyond  midnight,  with  an  expert 
student  to  help,  so  as  to  be  ready  to  give  the  pages  truly  correct  to 
the  printer's  boy  early  the  next  morning.  Then  came  the  distribu- 
tion according  to  traditional  usage.  So  many  copies  to  each  Pro- 
fessor, so  many  to  each  student,  so  many  to  the  pay  subscribers  for 
extra  copies,  a  copy  to  leading  Church  papers  and  Church  institutions, 
a  copy  to  each  Theological  Seminary,  including  the  Princeton  and 
Union,  with  request  to  exchange,  a  copy  to  leading  Universities  and 
Colleges.  Especially  a  copy  was  sent  to  each  of  our  Bishops,  to  each 
member  of  the  Seminary's  Standing  Committee,  to  each  of  the  Com- 


32 

mittee  on  Examinations,  and  to  certain  eminent  friends.  It  was 
charged  of  old,  out  of  special  respect  to  the  Bishop,  that  his  copies 
should  be  delivered  to  him  in  person,  and  not  sent  by  mail,  so  also 
all  the  notifications  of  the  Matriculation  and  Commencement.  And 
a  particular  injunction  was  given  to  lay  aside  in  the  Trustee  Docu- 
ment room  some  30  copies,  to  be  ready  for  use  to  be  put  into  the 
hands  of  examiners  and  distinguished  visitors  at  the  time  of  the 
public  examination.  These  traditional  instructions  are  the  outgrowth 
of  the  necessities  and  proprieties  of  the  Seminary  life  and  its  occasions. 
One  living  in  the  scene  learns  them.  He  masters  them  by  enquiry 
at  once,  or  gathers  them  by  degrees.  A  distinguished  divine  intro- 
duced lately,  and  not  breathing  the  institutional  atmosphere  effectually, 
nor  in  the  way  of  the  information,  can  hardly  manage  such  details 
successfully.  At  the  last  examination,  after  Morning  Prayer  was 
ended,  the  visitors  and  Examining  Committee  called  for  catalogues. 
None  could  be  found.  They  applied  to  me.  I  answered,  send  for 
the  Janitor,  who  regularly  used  to  bring  the  supply  to  the  room 
where  the  Examining  Committee  distributed  their  work.  He  replied 
that  none  had  been  stored  up  as  usual  in  the  Document  Room,  which 
was  always  within  his  reach  and  of  which  he  held  the  keys,  but  that 
they  must  be  in  the  Dean's  room  and  under  his  keeping.  Then  call 
on  the  Dean,  for  we  must  have  them  ;  vve  can't  get  along  without 
them.  But  the  Dean  has  not  yet  appeared.  He  does  not  reside  in 
the  Seminary,  you  know  !  The  hour  to  meet  the  classes  and  begin 
the  examinations  was  pressing,  and  they  had  to  go,  depending  upon 
blank  paper  and  their  private  note  of  the  names.  There  was  some 
little  difficulty  about  paper,  but  that  was  soon  met.  But  the 
exact  name  of  the  student,  his  diocese  and  his  college,  all  points  of 
interest,  were  not  in  possession.  Under  the  former  arrangement  this 
could  scarcely  happen. 

I  have  thus  endeavored  to  touch  upon  all  the  themes  which 
might  bear  upon  the  subjects  of  enquiry,  I  have  meant  to  produce 
the  impression  that  before  the  present  arrangement  of  the  Seminary 
it  was  in  fair  healthful  average  condition ;  and  that  I  do  not  accept 
some  popular  statements  that  evils  were  more  rife,  more  carelessly 
allowed,  or  less  effectually  reached  than  now.  In  some  matters  of 
dignified  demonstration,  the  new  is  rather  more  imposing,  while  the 
old  was  more  familiar  and  effective.  In  the  case  of  attendance  on 
Recitations,  as  I  have  stated,  the  improvement  is  considerable.  In 
the  discouragement  of  a  more  clerical  or  academic  dress,  and  the 
general  habit  of  all  citizen  varieties  of  fashion,  one  who  has  read  of 
the  English  universities,  or  has  visited  Annandale,  with  its  chaste 
and  churchly  usages,  might  feel  a  doubt  perchance.  I  have  en- 
deavored to  resolve  the  present  exceptions  which  I  have  made  not 


23 

into  the  personal  element,  but  into  the  operation  of  a  new  principle 
adopted,  and  a  new,  harder,  ironcast  system  insinuating  itself,  and  a 
substitution  for  a  resident  and  familiar  friend  of  a  dignified,  stately, 
and  almost  of  necessity,  unrecognizing  visitor. 

As  to  my  personal  intercourse,  the  Professors  have  been  for  many 
years  my  oldest  and  best  friends.  My  intercourse  with  the  Dean 
has  been  agreeable  and  courteous,  and  his  civilities  have  been  mark- 
ed and  gratefully  received.  At  this  very  Matriculation  day  just 
passed,  he  invited  me  to  deliver  the  Matriculation  discourse.  Even 
when  the  Faculty  decided  my  right  to  a  seat,  but  not  to  a  vote, 
the  Dean  though  not  called  upon  to  do  either,  both  argued  that  he 
thought  the  probabilities  in  my  favor,  and  voted  so  accordingly  ;  nor 
did  I  take  the  voters  in  the  negative,  my  ancient  fast  friends,  as  per- 
sonally agressive  to  me,  for  I  rather  thought  myself,  that  they  had 
the  right  in  the  question;  and  I  saw  clearly  enough  that  they  were 
not  aiming  at  me,  but  at  another,  with  whose  judgment  I  accorded 
and  whose  motions  I  was  prepared  to  second.  If  I  have  sometimes 
referred  to  the  personal  history,  I  have  meant  to  give  no  offence  ;  but 
to  illustrate  the  sentiment  by  the  real  actual  transaction,  the  system 
or  condition,  the  policy  or  government,  necessarily  producing  such 
results  under  any  ordinary  state  of  incumbency.  If  I  think  the 
troubles'  of  the  last  two  or  three  years  have  been  far  greater  than  of 
all  my  long  years  in  the  Seminary  beside,  I  would  far  rather  take  a 
philosophical  view  of  the  position  than  a  personal  one. 

I  now  bring  my  long  document  to  an  end,  with  the  hope  and  the 
prayer,  that  the  Rt.  Rev.,  the  Visitors,  may  be  so  graciously  guided 
as  to  protect  our  beloved  Seminary;  to  secure  and  extend  its  benefits 
on  the  most  liberal  scale  for  comfort  of  Professors,  and  the  happiness 
and  best  culture  ot  students  ;  and  that  the  result  of  all  the  event 
may  be,  that  of  its  able,  learned,  workful,  sympathizing,  influential 
friends,  as  we  cannot  spare  one,  so  we  may  lose  none. 
Most  respectfully  submitted, 
[Signed,]  SAMUEL  ROOSEVELT  JOHNSON, 

Emeritus  Professor. 

Bainbridge,  Chenango  Co.,  N.  Y. 

The  Feast  of  the  Epiphany,  A.  D.  1873. 

The  day  of  my  Ordination,  48  years  ago. 


THE  ISSUE    OF  FACT 

BETWEEN 

BISHOP  COXE  AND   PROFESSOR   SEYMOUR. 
EVIDENCE  UNDER  OATH. 

One  of  tlie  most  painful  and  distressing  results  of  the  long  secret 
session  of  the  General  Convention,  is  the  forcing  upon  me  a  direct 
issue  of  veracity  with  the  Bishop  of  Western  New  York.  In  regard 
to  this,  I  would  cheerfully  keep  silence  and  bear  the  injustice,  did  it 
concern  only  the  question  of  the  Bishopric  of  Illinois,  which  I  never 
sought  or  desired  :  but  since  it  bears  whoUy  upon  the  discharge  of 
my  present  duties  as  acting  Dean  of  the  Seminary,  it  is  unhappily 
my  duty,  so  long  as  I  remain  in  this  position,  to  defend  myself  from 
any  charges  which  would  weaken  the  confidence  of  the  Chiu-ch  in  the 
Institution. 

On  the  seventh  day  of  the  secret  session  and  only  about  two  hours 
before  the  time  first  fixed  for  the  decisive  vote,  Judge  Sheffey  of  Vir- 
ginia read  the  first  of  the  following  letters.  He  had  it  in  his  posses- 
sion, I  have  been  told,  four  days  before  it  was  read  ;  and  I  am  informed 
that  when  asked  by  one  of  my  friends  for  a  copy  of  it  in  advance,  he 
refused,  on  the  ground  that  he  was  specially  charged  only  to  read  it  to 
the  House,  and  to  show  it  to  none  but  to  certain  members.  After  it 
was  read,  a  copy  was  again  refused,  on  the  ground  that  it  was  "in  the 
possession  of  the  House,"  and  that  the  isroceedings  were  "secret." 
^lien  the  obligation  of  secrecy  was  removed,  a  copy  was  unattainable, 
because  the  documents  were  "  in  the  hands  of  the  printer."  The  first 
sight  of  them  was  gained  only  on  the  Friday  evening  after  the  question 
was  decided,  when  I  received  proof-sheets  containing  the  letters.  And 
since  then  Mr.  WiUiam  Welsh  of  Pennsylvania,  through  whom  the 
second  and  third  letters  of  Bishop  Coxe  were  brought  before  the  House 
of  Deputies,  on  the  last  day  of  the  secret  session,  has  ptiblished  a 
letter  in  corroboration  of  them,  which  he  inserted  in  the  last  number 
of  the  Daily  Churchman,  to  which,  of  coiirse,  that  issue  being  the  last, 
there  could  be  no  reply  through  the  same  channel.  I  mention  these 
facts,  not  to  complain  of  anything  which  others  have  done  conscien- 
tiously, or  which  they  regard  as  the  work  of  a  special  "Providence": 
but  simply  to  explain  the  disadvantages  under  which  I  have  labored 
in  learning  the  exact  nature  of  the  charges,  and  the  necessary  delay 
that  has  occurred  in  preparing  my  defence.  Moreover,  the  charges 
against  me  rest  solely  on  the  statement  of  one  man  ;  and  the  only 
corroboration  is  what  Mr.  Welsh  says,  that  somebody  else  says,  that 


he  remembers  hearing  said,  a  year  and  a  half  ago.  On  the  contrary, 
every  word  of  my  statement  which  follows  nest  after  the  Letters  of 
Bishop  Coxe,  and  every  word  of  the  evidence  given  by  the  Eev.  Mr. 
Grafton  and  others  who  were  present,  and  knew  the  facts  of  their 
own  knowledge,  is  given  under  the  solemn  sanction  of  an  oath.  The 
result  is  humbly  left  in  the  hands  of  God,  and  to  the  judgment  of  all 
honest  men.  Geokge  F.  Seymoxje. 

General  Theological  Seminary,  Nov.  5,  1874. 

Bishop  Coxe's  Letter. 
I. 

[Read  by  Jtidge  Sheffey,  of  Virginia,  on  Wednesday  afternoon, 
the  21st  of  Oiitober  :] 

New  York,  Oct.  17,  1874. 
My  Dear  Judge  Smith  : 

The  facts  are  substantially  as  they  r.ave  been  reported  to -you. 
I  could  say  many  things  in  favor  of  this  Candidate  with  entire  truth, 
and  testimonials  might  be  multiplied  in  his  favor  without  any  du- 
phcity.  But  the  whole  Irulli  would  reveal  another  class  of  facts,  and  I 
suppose  Dr.  S.  himself  Avould  not  deny  that,  as  a  Professor  in  the 
Seminary,  he  has  steadfastly  resiste'd  the  noble  efforts  of 'his  col- 
leagues, such  as  Drs.  Seabury  and  Vinton,  who  have  labored  to  main- 
tain the  doctrine  of  this  Church,  respecting  the  Holy  Eucharist,  and 
the  pi"o visions  of  the  Rubric  for  its  solemn  celebi'ation,  pure  ami  un- 
defiled. 

These  things  became  known  to  me  in  the  discharge  of  official 
duty  as  a  "Visitor  "  and  a  member  of  a  Committee,  and  I  regret  to 
say  that  the  learned  Professor  was  forced  to  confess  to  me  that,  uutli 
Ids  k/ioideage  and  co>isei/t,  a  reverend  gentleman,  well  known  as  an 
active  agent  of  the  C.  B.  S.,  or  of  the  system  it  sustains,  was  permit- 
ted to  lecture  to  students  of  the  Seminary,  in  a  private  room,  on  his 
Ijeculiar  views  of  the  "  Holy  Eucharist." 

It  is  "with  extreme  regret  that  I  mention  these  facts,  which  I  have 
desired  an  opportunity  of  stating  in  the  Board  of  Trustees  of  the 
Seminary,  and  only  there.  As  you  well  know,  however,  the  impossi- 
bility of  assembhng  that  Board,  or  any  fair  proportion  of  them,  has 
operated  to  render  the  investignlinn  nf  f'lc/x  an  impossibility  for  many 
years.  The  facts  ought  to  be  known,  however,  and  the  Church  must 
be  awakened  to  her  responsibiUties  in  such  momentous  concerns. 
Faithfully  yours, 

(Signed)  A.  Cleveland  Coxe, 

Bishop  of  Western  New  York. 
The  Hon.  Judge  SmTH. 

n. 

[Mr.  WiUiam  Welsh,  of  Pennsylvania,  on  Thursday,  Oct.  22d,  in- 
troduced the  following  correspondence  :] 

New  York,  Oct.  21,  1874, 
My  Dear  Bishop  : 

By  a  remarkable  Providence, .  a  letter  of  yours  dated  Oct.  4,  1873, 
came  into  my  possession  this  evening.  I  enclose  it  to  you,  and  ask 
permission  to  use  it  at  my  (iiscretion.     If  you  ever  conversed  AA-ith 


any  of  your  students  about  the  visits  of  the  Kev.  Mr.  Grafton  to  the 
Seminary,  or  have  any  particulars  of  siieh  visits,  and  the  knowledge 
that  the  Rev.  Dr.  Seymour  had  of  them,  pray  oblige  me  with  such 
particulars.     Yours,  very  sincerely,  W.  Welsh. 

To  Rt.  Rev.  A.  C.  Coxe,  D.D. 

New  Yoek,  Oct.  21,  1874. 
My  Dear  Mr.  Welsh  : 

I  do  not  feel  at  liberty  to  refuse  you  the  use  of  my  letter  of  Oct. 
4,  1873,  the  existence  of  which  I  had  q^iite  forgotten.  But  consult 
with  my  friend,  Judge  Smith,  who  knows  the  extreme  reluctance 
with  which  I  have  permitted  my  testimony  to  be  used  in  your  dis- 
cussions. 

I  might  have  made  my  statement  miich  stronger  and  more  de- 
tailed ;  for  the  case  was  a  very  gross  abuse  of  power.  We  do  not 
send  our  candidates  to  the  Seminary  to  be  instructed  by  emissaries 
from  foreign  societies  ;  but  when  I  expressed  my  surprise  to  Dr.  Sey- 
mour that  a  volunteer  Professor  had  been  introduced  by  him  wdthin 
the  walls  of  the  Seminary,  he  defended  himself  on  the  general 
ground  that  the  person  was  "  a  presbyter  of  the  Church." 

In  reply  to  another  question,  I  must  add  that  in  examining  one 
of  my  candidates,  who  reluctantly  admitted  his  knowledge  of  the 
facts,  I  found  that  he  had  been  present  at  one  of  these  volunteer  lec- 
tures, in  which  extravagant  and  false  views  of  the  Holy  Eucharist 
were  inculcated.  Nothing  but  a  very  extraordinary  duplicity  can 
put  any  construction  on  these  facts,  which  good  men  can  accept  as 
satisfactory.     Faithfully  yours, 

A.  Cleveland  Coxe,  Bishop  of  Western  New  York. 
Wm.  Welsh,  Esq. 

Buffalo,  Oct.  4,  1873. 
My  Dear  Dr.  Forbes  : 

Nothing  could  be  more  opportune — nothing  more  ad  rem — than 
the  publication,  at  iliis  moment,  with  historical  notes,  of  this  very  val- 
uable dociTment.  I  send  it  hj  the  same  post  that  takes  this,  ha\dng 
obtained  Prof.  Seabury's  permission  to  hold  it,  against  some  such 
emergency,  which  I  foresaw  nnist  arise  before  our  Reform  work  is 
much  further  advanced.  I  was  sorry  I  could  not  see  you  when  I  was 
last  in  town  ;  but  things  have  gone  on  well,  in  some  respects  ;  and 
this  explosion  of  the  "  C.  B.  S."  will  work  much  good. 

I  think  historical  notes  are  needed,  and  the  whole  should  be  pre- 
faced by  an  extract  from  that  document,  showing  the  nature  of  their 
intrigues,  and  how  they  glory  in  stultifying  the  discipline  and  de- 
stroying the  official  relations  of  the  Dean  to  the  students. 

I  have  the  present  (acting)  Dean's  own  acknowledgment  that  he 
permitted  "Father  Grafton"  to  visit  and  indoctrinate  the  students 
last  Winter. 

If  you  don't  publish  the  accompanying  document,  please  give  it 
back  to  Prof.  Seabury  ;  only  asking  him  to  consider  my  permission 
to  Inake  further  use  of  it,  as  not  withdrawn.  We  may  have  to  con- 
vince the  whole  Church  of  the  impossibility  of  working  the  Seminary 
as  it  is  now  going  on.     Faithfully  yours, 

A.  Cleveland  Coxe, 

Bishop  Western  New  York. 
The  Rev.  Dr.  Forbes,  &c.,  &c.,  &c. 


STATEMENT  IN  EEPLY. 

It  is  not  true  that  I  ever  "■introduced'''  Fatlier  Grafton  as  "a 
volunteer  Professor  "  "■witliin  the  walls  of  the  Seminary," — having 
never  introduced  or  even  in\'ited  him  to  the  Seminary  in  any  ca- 
pacity. 

It  is  not  true  that  I  "permitted"  Father  Grafton  "to  \dsit  and 
indoctrinate  the  students  last  Winter,"  or  at  any  other  time,  having 
never  been  asked  for,  and  having  never  given,  any  permission  of  the 
kind. 

It  is  not  true  that  he  "was  permitted"  by  me  "to  led  we  to  stu- 
dents of  the  Seminnnj  in  n  private  room,'''  as  if  I  were  ashamed  or  afraid 
to  ask  him  to  do  it  openly.  No  person  has  ever  been  permitted  by 
me  to  lecture  to  the  students  except  openly  in  the  Chaj)el  or  Library, 
and  with  the  knowledge  of  the  Faculty. 

It  is  not  true  that  I  ever  "confessed'"  to,  or  "  acknowledged," anj 
such  action  as  is  denied  in  the  above  three  paragraphs  ;  for  I  have 
never  thought  it  honest  to  confess  or  acknowledge  what  I  never  had 
done. 

It  is  not  true  that  I  was  "forced'''  to  confess  it :  for  no  compul- 
sion can  well  draw  from  me,  to  my  own  jirejudice,  a  false  confession 
of  a  thing  which  I  never  had  done.  Every  statement  ever  made  by 
me  at  any  time  on  this  subject,  has  been  freely  and  voluntarily  made. 

It  is  not  true  that  the  Bishop  has  "  my  own  acknoidedgment  that 
I  permitted  '  Father  Grafton  '  to  ^isit  and  indoctrinate  "  as  aforesaid  ; 
for  I  never  made  any  acknowledgment  of  the  sort. 

It  is  not  true  that  Father  Grafton  lectured  at  the  Seminary  "with 
my  knowledge  and  consent,"  for  I  knew  nothing  of  his  lecturing  until 
some  days  after  it  was  all  over,  and  never  gave  any  consent  thereto. 

It  is  not  true  that  the  object  of  Fatlier  Gr.aton's  lectures  was  to 
inculcate  "  his  peculiar  vieios  of  the  Holy  Eucharist,"  for  the  students 
who  were  present  testify  that  there  was  only  one  incidental  allusion 
to  the  Holy  Eucharist  during  the  two  evenings. 

It  IS  NOT  TRUE  that,  in  this  incidental  allusion,  "extravagant  and 
false  views  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  were  inciilcated,"  unless  it  be  "  ex- 
travagant and  false  "  to  say  that  the  benefit  received  in  the  Holy 
Communion  will  be  in  proportion  to  the  intensity  of  the  Faith  of  the 
devovit  receiver,  conducing  sometimes  even  to  the  recovery  from  bod- 
ily disease.  This  remark  was  made  in  disproof  of  the  assertion  of  Ro- 
manists that  Sacramental  Grace  among  us  is  without  efficacy.  The 
explanation  here  given  is  drawn  from  notes  of  Father  Grafton's  lec- 
tures, taken  at  the  time  by  one  of  the  students  present,  but  which  I 
never  saw  or  heard  of  until  after  my  Confirmation  was  defeated. 

It  is  not  true  that  in  this  matter  there  was  "  a  very  gross  ahuse  of 
power  "  on  my  part  ;  for  there  was  no  exercise  of  power  at  all,  nor 
any  knowledge,  at  the  time,  on  which  any  power  could  be  exercised. 

It  is  not  true  that  Bishop  Coxe  obtained  his  version  of  the  mat- 
ter when  he  was  in  the  Seminary  «.s  a  "Visitor"  of  the  same  in  the 
Spring  of  1873.  For  at  that  Visitation,  the  moment  the  fact  of  Father 
Grafton's  lectures  was  mentioned,  I  stated  to  him,  in  terms  too  strong 
and  clear  to  permit  the  possibility  of  mistake,  that  those  lectures  were 
delivered  without  my  knowledge  or  consent,  and  that  if  I  had  known  of  them 
in  time  I  should  certainly  have  prohibited  them.  The  Bishop  then  asked, 
how  such  a  man  was  allowed  to  set  foot  upon  the  Seminary  grounds 
at  all ;  and  used  very  harsh  language  touching  Father  Grafton,  saying 


that  I  ought  to  have  "taken  him  by  the  neck  and  marched  him  off  the 
grounds,"  or  words  to  that  effect.  It  was  in  reply  to  this  denial  of  a 
right  even  to  visit  a  student  whom  he  happened  to  know,  that  some 
things  were  said,  which  have  been  altogether  misapplied.  It  should  be 
remembered  that  the  Seminary  students  are  almost  all  college  graduates; 
and  that  the  Seminary  course  corresponds  to  a  post-graduate  course.  No 
American  College  undertakes  to  prevent  students  from  ever  receiving  a 
friend  as  a  visitor  in  their  private  rooms,  unless  previous  permission 
has  been  received  from  the  President.  In  a  post-graduate  course 
such  a  severity  of  exclusion  would  not  be  submitted  to  for  a  moment, 
and  ought  not  to  be,  by  any  body  of  American  young  men.  It  would 
be  more  absurd,  if  possible,  to  requii'e  it  of  young  men  preparing  for 
the  Holy  Ministry  than  of  those  preparing  for  any  other  profession, 
such  as  the  Law,  or  Medicine.  It  has  never  at  any  time  been  at- 
tempted in  the  General  Theological  Seminary,  since  its  foundation  to 
the  present  day.  And  when  the  Bishop  stated  that  it  was  my  duty  to 
eject  Father  Grafton  summarily  by  physical  force,  I  ventured  to  re- 
mind him  that  the  Eev.  Father  Grafton  was  a  Presbyter  of  the  Church 
in  good  standing,  that  he  was  second  to  no  man  in  the  Chui'ch  or  out 
of  it  in  all  that  appertains  to  personal  character,  social  position  or 
holiness  of  life  ;  and  that  every  respectable  person — Bishop,  priest, 
deacon,  or  layman — had  the  free  entree  to  visit  his  friends  among  the 
students,  as  in  every  other  American  Seminary,  without  obtaining  spe- 
cial permission  for  each  special  visit.  This  was  the  only  connection 
in  which  anything  was  said  of  Father  Grafton's  right  as  "a  Presbyter 
of  the  Church. " 

I  would  add  here  that  such  extemporized  private  meetings  among 
the  students,  though  rare,  have  not  been  unijrecedented.  Some  years 
ago,  the  Eev.  Dr.Breck  found  himself  beset  by  a  crowd  of  young 
men  in  the  room  of  a  student  whom  he  was  \dsiting,  and  they  per- 
suaded him  to  relate  the  history  of  Nashotah,  though  the  Dean  and 
Professors  knf;w  nothing  of  it  until  some  days  after.  Still  later,  a 
similar  thing  took  place  diiring  a  \dsit  by  Bishop  Tozer  ;  and  on  nei- 
ther occasion  was  any  fault  found  by  the  Dean  or  Faculty,  though 
no  j)ermission  had  been  asked  or  given. 

It  is  not  tbue  that  I  have  "steadfastly  resisted  the  noble  efforts 
of  my  colleagues  ....  to  maintain  the  doctrine  of  this  Church  re- 
specting the  Holy  Eucharist."  This  construction  of  the  course  which 
I  pursued  in  opposing  an  entirely  novel,  despotic,  and  un-American 
policy  of  discipline,  was  energetically  disclaimed  by  me  at  the  begin- 
ning, was  reiterated  by  me  at  every  stage  of  our  unhajjpy  contro- 
versy on  the  subject,  and  was  finally  abandoned  by  the  very  col- 
leagues who  made  it,  when,  in  the  presence  of  the  Bishoj)S  as  Visit- 
ors, they  signed  their  names  to  a  declaration  that  what  they  had 
done  "was  not  intended  to  impeach  the  general  conduct  and  teach- 
ing of  Dr.  Seymour,  either  as  a  Professor  of  the  Seminary,  or  as  a 
Presbyter  of  the  Church." 

It  may  be  true  that  Bishoi)  Coxe  has  "  desired  an  opportunity  of 
stating  in  the  Board  of  Trustees,  and  only  there,"  his  version  of  the 
Grafton  incident.  But  he  has  been  present  at  all  the  three  meetings 
of  the  Board  held  since  his  visitation,  and  has  never  given  the  slight- 
est evidence  of  his  desire,  by  word  or  deed. 

It  is  now  left  to  aU  unprejudiced  and  candid  persons,  to  consider 
the  above,  together  with  the  sworn  evidence  which  follows,  and  then 


say  whether,  in  regard  to  my  acts,  there  be  any  foundation  for 
Bishop  Coxe's  assertion  that  "nothing  but  a  very  extraordinary  du- 
plicity can  i^ut  any  construction  on  these  facts,  which  good  men  can 
accept  as  satisfactory. "  Geokge  F.   Seymour. 

Sworn  to  before  me  the  6th  day  of  November,  1874. 

O.  P.   Sjhth,  Notary  Public,  New  York  county. 


1,  Kandall  Cooke  Hall,  a  Presbyter  of  the  I  locese  of  New  York,  and 
a  Professor  in  the  General  Theological  Seminary,  was  present  at  the 
Visitation  held  by  Bishop  Coxe  in  the  Spring  of  1873,  referred  to  by 
Professor  Seymour  in  his  above  affidavit,  and  I  hereby  testify  under 
oath  that  to  the  best  of  my  recollection,  knowledge,  and  belief,  Pro- 
fessor Seymour's  statement  of  what  took  place  on  that  occasion  is  sub- 
stantially correct.  EandaijL  Cooke  Hail. 

Sworn  to  before  me  the  6th  day  of  November,  1874. 

O.  P.  Smith,  Notary  Public,  New  York  county. 

I,  Charles  C.  Grafton,  of  Boston,  Massachusetts,  Presbyter,  Kector 
of  the  Church  of  the  Advent  in  that  city,  on  oath  say  : 

I  have  been  informed  that  the  Rev.  Dr.  Seymour,  acting  Dean  of 
the  General  Theological  Seminary,  New  York,  has  lieen  charged  with 
inciting  or  permitting  me  to  deliver,  or  in  some  way  countenancing 
me  in  the  delivery  of  a  lectiu-e  or  address  on  the  subject  of  the  Holy 
Eucharist,  or  on  the  Confraternity  of  the  Blessed  Sacrament,  in  pri- 
vate, to  the  students  of  the  Seminary.  I  hereby  declare  this  to  be 
untitle. 

I  would  further  say  that  the  only  visits  I  have  ever  made  to  the 
Seminary,  since  Dr.  Seymour's  connection  with  it  as  Dean  or  Pro- 
fessor, are  the  following  :  When  I  was  in  this  country  for  a  few 
weeks  in  1867,  I  spent  two  evenings  in  a  friend's  room  in  the  Semi- 
nary. Dr.  Seymour  was  not  Dean,  and  had  nothing  whatever  to  do 
with  my  visits  by  invitation  or  otherwise.  I  talked  with  some  of 
the  students  who  came  in  to  see  me  on  the  EeKgious  Life,  and  said 
nothing  concerning  the  Holy  Communion.  I  never  learned  from 
any  one  that  my  -visit  was  objectionable  to  any  of  the  Faculty. 

I  was  there  again  in  1872,  on  my  return  to  this  country  from  Eng- 
land, under  the  following  cii'cumstances  :  Having  occasion  to  be  in 
New  York  while  my  brother's  house  was  closed,  I  was  asked  by  a 
student  whom  I  had  invited  to  become  one  of  my  curates,  and  who 
W'as  considering  the  matter,  to  come  and  occupy  for  a  night  or  two  a 
vacant  bed-room  that  was  at  his  disposal,  his  room-mate  being  absent. 
I  did  so,  and  quite  informally,  and  withoiit  any  previous  arrange- 
ment or  plan  on  my  pavt,  several  of  the  students  came  in  (some  in- 
vited by  him,  others  at  their  own  motion) ;  and,  at  their  request,  I 
tallied  to  them  on  the  Spiritual  Life  and  its  temptations.  I  believe 
I  said  something  afterwards  against  the  claims  of  the  Roman  Church, 
and  I  may  have  answered  a  question  about  the  Holy  Communion. 
I  have  forgotten  what. 

I  am  the  better  able  to  recall  the  subject  of  the  evening's  topic, 
because  I  stated  it  to  the  students  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Semi- 
nary at  Cambridge,  Mass.,  in  the  presence  of  one  of  the  Professors, 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Wharton,  when  I  visited  that  institution  and  addressed 
the  students,  at  his  invitation  and  in  his  presence.     I  have  no  reason 


whatever  to  believe  that  Dr.  Seymour  had  any  knowledge  of  this  in- 
terview, in  my  friend's  room,  with  the  students. 

My  acquaintance  with  Professor  Seymour  is  very  slight  ;  and  on 
the  one  or  two  occasions  when  we  have  met,  I  have  never  mentioned 
to  him  the  fact  that  I  had  an  interview,  such  as  I  have  described, 
with  the  students,  for  I  never  supposed  it  a  matter  of  importance. 

Since  1872  I  have  been  at  the-  Seminary  but  twice,  each  time  on 
jjrivate  business  only,  and  on  neither  occasion  ha\ing  any  conference 
mth  any  o|  the  students  on  rehgious  matters.  These  are  all  the 
visits  I  hav  ^made  to  the  Seminary. 

I  have  spoken  of  ^dsits  to  the  Seminary.  It  may  be  proper  to 
add  that  I  have  never  had  any  conference  with  any  of  the  students 
away  from  the  Seminary,  by  the  invitation,  peiTQission,  or  procure- 
ment, directly  or  indirectly,  of  Dr.  Seymour. 

I  "ndll  further  state  that,  although  a  member  of  the  Confraternity 
of  the  Blessed  Sacrament  when  residing  in  England,  I  gave  up  all 
active  connection  with  it  on  returning  to  this  country,  and  left  it 
declining,  on  this  ground,  an  invitation  extended  to  me  by  the  Con- 
fraternity here  to  join  it  ;  and  on  no  occasion  have  I  talked  to  the 
students  concerning  this  Society,  its  organization,  workings,  or  belief. 

Charles  C.  Geatton. 

Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts,  Suffolk  County  :  At  Boston, 
in  said  county,  this  6th  day  of  November,  A.  D.  1874,  personally  ap- 
peared the  Rev.  Charles  C.  Grafton,  and  made  solemn  oath  that  the 

t  —■ —  J  foregoing  affida\T.t,  by  him  subscribed,  is  true,  before  me, 
<  SEAL  >  N.  Austin  Paeks,  Notary  Public. 

I,  George  Henry  Higgins,  a  presbyter  of  the  Diocese  of  Illinois, 
rector  of  the  Parish  of  Trinity  in  the  city  of  Lincoln,  in  the  State  of 
Tlh'nois,  having  seen  in  public  print,  certain  statements  having  refer- 
ence to  the  Eev.  G.  F.  Seymour,  D.D.,  and  the  General  Theological 
Seminary  in  the  city  of  New  York,  and  knowing  of  my  own  knowl- 
edge that  such  statements  are  false,  and  as  I  believe,  are  uttei'ed  with 
intention  to  deceive,  do  now,  from  a  sense  of  right  and  duty  make 
the  following  true  relation  of  facts  : 

1st.  That  I  entered  the  Junior  Class  in  the  General  Theological 
Seminary  in  the  Fall  of  the  year  1870,  and  that  I  graduated  there- 
from and  received  my  diploma  in  the  year  1873  ;  that  during  the 
terms  of  each  year  I  was  resident  in  the  Seminary,  occupying  during 
my  whole  coiu-se  room  5  in  the  East  Building  ; 

That  during  my  course  I  was  socially  intimate  with  one  Henry 
M.  Torbert,  now  a  priest  of  the  Diocese  of  New  York,  then  a  mem- 
ber of  my  class,  and  resident  in  the  same  East  Building  of  the  Gen- 
eral Theological  Seminary  ; 

That  at  the  time  mentioned  in  the  false  statements  above  referred 
to,  I  was  inWted  by  the  said  Mr.  H.  M.  Torbert,  to  meet  in  his  room 
the  Rev.  C.  C.  Grafton  of  Boston,  who  was  temporarily  in  the  city  of 
New  York,  on  his  way  to  or  from  Boston  ; 

That  I  accepted  the  invitation,  and  met  besides  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Grafton  three  or  four  of  my  fellow  students  whom  I  knew  as  the 
intimate  friends  of  Mr.  Torbert ;  the  evening  was  passed  in  pleasant 
general  conversation,  and  towards  its  close,  a  suggestion  was  made 
either  by  myself  or  by  one  of  the  students  present,  that  if  Mr. 
Grafton's  stay  in  New  York  was  prolonged  over  the  one  night,  we 


8 

might  be  allowed  to  meet  liim  again  tlie  next  evening,  and  that  lie 
would  tell  us  sometliing  of  the  work  carried  on  by  the  Order  of  St. 
John  the  Evangelist ;  that  by  permission  of  Mr.  Torbert,  asked  and 
obtained,  I  in\ited  other  of  my  friends  among  the  students  to  be 
present ; 

That  on  the  second  evening  we  met  some  additional  students  in- 
vited by  Mr.  Torbert,  and  all  having  been  introduced  to  Mr.  Grafton, 
we  recited  the  hymn  "Come,  Holy  Ghost,"  and  the  Lord's  Prayer, 
after  which  Mr.  Grafton  gave  a  short  lecture  of  instniction  and 
advice  relative  to  the  ministerial  life,  which  he  founded  on  the  coun- 
sels of  our  Lord  mentioned  in  the  7th  and  19th  chapters  of  St. 
Matthew's  Gospel.  After  singing  the  hymn,  and  the  benediction,  the 
students  disj^ersed  with  remarks  of  approbation  and  thanks  to  the 
reverend  gentleman  for  his  timely  and  acceptable  counsels  ; 

That  I  am  fully  persuaded  this  was  the  only  time  during  my  stay 
in  the  Seminary  that  Mr.  Grafton  met  any  of  ,the  students  in  such 
manner,  and  I  positively  assert  that  on  this  occasion  it  arose  solely 
from  the  courtesy  of  Mr.  Torbert  and  our  own  utterly  unpremeditat- 
ed action  thereupon. 

Furthermore,  That  about  two  weeks  after  the  event  just  related, 
the  Professor  of  Systematic  Theology  stated  to  our  class  during  reci- 
tation that  the  Head  of  the  Confraternity  of  the  Blessed  Sacrament 
had  been  visiting  the  Seminary,  and  had  there  jjropagated  its  abom- 
inable opinions,  or  words  of  like  effect,  and  this  statement  being  so 
utterly  foreign  to  what  really  took  place  as  above  stated  at  Mr.  Graf- 
ton's visit,  was  received  by  the  students  with  a  great  deal  of  merri- 
ment, and  I  desire  to  state  that,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge  and  be- 
lief, the  Rev.  Dr.  Seymour  was  totally  ignorant  of  all  and  any  part  of 
the  occurrence,  until  the  rumor  of  the  assertion  made  by  the  Professor 
of  Systematic  Theology  brought  the  matter  to  his  notice. 

Since  that  time  I  have  twice  seen  in  the  columns  of  The  Church 
Joiu'nal,  the  same  utterly  false  statement  in  regard  to  the  C.  B.  S. 
and  the  visit  of  Mr.  Grafton  to  the  Seminary  ;  Therefore  I  desire  to 
state  as  one  of  the  parties  by  whom  the  matter  originated,  that  each 
and  every  statement  of  the  matter  which  dijffers  from  the  account 
given  above  and  the  statements  made  below,  is  utterly  false  and 
unreKable  : 

1.  The  visit  of  Mr.  Grafton  was  of  a  j^rivate  social  nature  and  to 
Mr.  Torbert. 

2.  The  first  evening  we  met  Mr.  Grafton  socially  as  the  -friends  of 
Mr.  Torbert. 

3.  That  the  meeting  of  the  second  evening  was  simply  the  result 
of  an  unpremeditated  request  made  by  us,  the  students  present. 

4.  That  nothing  in  regard  to  the  Holy  Commimion  was  the  subject 
matter  of  either  evening. 

5.  That  nothing  in  regard  to  the  existence,  the  affairs,  or  the  doc- 
trines of  theC.  B.  S.,  was  so  much  as  mentioned,  nor  was  anything 
said  which  could  possibly  be  construed  or  misconstrued  into  having 
any  relation  thereto. 

6.  From  the  manner  in  which  the  meeting  originated,  it  was  im- 
possible for  any  one  to  have  knowledge  thereof  except  the  students 
invited. 

7.  The  meeting  was  in  no  wise  secret,  but  was  the  subject  of  gen- 
eral conversation  for  two  or  three  days  afterward. 


9 

8.  That  the  Rev.  Dr.  Seymour  knew  nothing  whatever  of  the 
meeting. 

9.  That  the  whole  matter  of  Mr.  Grafton's  address  related  to  the 
personal  piiritv  of  Ufe  necessary  for  those  who  are  called  to  Holy 
Orders.  "^  "^  G.   HENEY  HIGGINS. 

,  — —  J  Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me,  this  28th  day  of 

]  SEAi.  -     October,  A.  D.  1874. 

'-  — .—  '  Henky  W.  Dana,  Notary  Public. 

We,  members  of  the  Senior  Class  in  the  General  Theological  Sem- 
inary, make  the  following  statement  of  facts  : 

We  were  present  on  the  occasion  of  the  delivery  of  two  discourses 
by  the  Rev.  C.  C.  Grafton,  in  a  student's  room,  on  the  evenings  of 
Dec.  11th  and  12th,  1872.  W»j  were  there,  ^ith  some  twenty  others, 
at  the  invitation  of  the  occupant  of  the  room,  whom  Mr.  Grafton  was 
visiting. 

We  had  no  reason  to  believe  that  the  meetings  were  effected  or 
authorized  by  the  Dean  ;  and  the  fact  of  their  being  held  in  a  jjrivate 
room  would  give  the  impression  that  the  student  acted  on  his  own 
responsibility. 

The  discourses  were,  on  the  first  evening,  on  the  temptations 
peculiar  to  the  clerical  life  ;  and  on  the  second  evening  he  jDresented 
the  arguments  for  the  so-called  religious  life.  No  mention  was  made 
of  the  "  C.  B.  S.,"  and  only  an  incidental  allusion  to  the  Holy  Eu- 
charist. 

We  have  digests  made  immediately  after  the  discourses  were  de- 
livered, which  are  at  the  disposal  of  any  one  concerned. 

(Present  Dec.  12th  only,)  F.  W.  Tomkins,  Jr., 

Frank  SanTH, 
Amos  T.  Ashton, 
(Present  Dec.  11th  only,)  Egbert  Wyllie. 

Eobt.  B.  Drane  declined  to  be  present  becau.se  he  understood  that 
the  Dean  knew  nothing  about  the  matter. 

fF.  W.  Tomkins,  Jr., 
Sworn  to  before  me  this  2d  day  of  Novem-  |  Frank  Smith, 
ber,  1874.  O.  P.  Smith,  -|  Amos  T.  Ashton, 

Notary  Public,  New  York  county.  |  Egbert  Wtllie, 

1^  Ro'bt.  B.  Drane. 

In  the  Fall  of  1872,  my  room-mate,  now  the  Eev.  H.  M.  Torbert, 
Priest  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States,  invit- 
ed the  Eev.  C.  C.  Grafton  of  Boston,  Mass.,  to  call  on  him  at  the 
General  Theological  Seminary. 

At  this  time  I  was  boarding  outside  of  the  Seminary,  and  having 
no  use  for  my  bed  there,  I  TVTote  to  the  Eev.  Mr.  Grafton,  and  asked 
him  to  occupy  my  room. 

Mr.  Grafton  accepted  my  inA~itation,  and  spent  the  nights  of 
Wednesday  and  Thursday,  Dec.  11th  and  12th,  1872,  in  my  room. 

On  Wednesday  evening,  Dec.  11th,  Mr.  Torbert  invited  some  of 
the  students  to  call  on  the  Eev.  Mr.  Grafton  in  our  room. 

There,  at  the  request  of  some  of  these  students,  the  Eev.  Mr. 
Grafton  talked,  in  an  informal  manner,  on  the  subject  of  the  Spirit- 
ual Life. 

His  conversation  was  not  in  reference  to  the  Holy  Eucharist,  and 


10 

lie  did  not  allude  to  the  Confraternity  of   the  Blessed   Sacrament  so 
far  as  I  remember. 

Neither  Mr.  Torbert  nor  myself  invited  the  Eev.  Mr.  Grafton  to 
the  Seminary  for  the  piiiiDose  of  delivering  a  lecture  on  the  Holy 
Eucharist.     Mr.  Torbert  desired  to  consiilt  him  on  personal  matters. 

I  was  not  present  on  Thursday  evening. 

This  was  the  only  occasion,  during  my  Seminary  course  (from 
the  Fall  of  1871  until  June,  1874),  that  any  such  thing  took  place,  so 
far  as  I  know  or  believe.  Had  any  such  thing  occurred,  I  should 
doubtless  have  heard  of  it. 

The  Dean  of  the  Seminary,  the  Rev.  Geo.  F.  Seymour,  D.D., 
knew  nothing  of  the  interview  which  the  Rev.  Mr.  Grafton  had  with 
the  students,  from  me,  until  after  Mr.  Grafton  had  left  the  city,  and, 
so  far  as  I  remember,  I  never  told  him  of  it. 

State  of  New  Jersey,  County  of  Essex,  ss. :  Wynant  VanderjDool, 
of  full  age,  being  duly  sworn,  on  his  oath  saith  that  the  above  state- 
ment, so  far  as  his  own  acts  are  concerned,  is  true  and  accurate,  and 
that  so  far  as  the  acts  of  others  are  concerned,  he  believes  the  same 
to  be  true,  according  the  best  of  his  knowledge  and  information. 
Sworn  and  subscribed,  at  Newark,  N.  J.,  this] 

.-^' 2d  day  of  November,  A.  D.  1874,  1  ^.    . ,  ,^^  xr .  ,,^^^^^^, 

I  I      1     i  TTT    TT  r  W YNANT  V  ANDEKPOOL. 

I  SEAL  1    before  me,    W.  Vandeepool,      [ 
— V — '    ..,  U.  S.  Commissioner.  J 

Having  heard  from  various  sources  that  the  Rev.  George  E.  Sey- 
mour, D.D.,  Dean  of  the  General  Theological  Seminary,  has  been 
charged  with  inviting  to  that  Institution,  in  the  years  1872  or  1873, 
the  Rev.  C.  C.  Grafton,  rector  of  the  Church  of  the  Advent,  Boston, 
for  the  jjui-pose  of  lecturing  to  the  students  of  the  Seminary  iipon  the 
subject  of  the  Holy  Eucharist,  I  desire  to  make  the  follo-\ving  state- 
ment : 

I  was  a  member  of  the  General  Theological  Seminary  in  the  years 
1872  and  1873,  and  during  that  time  the  Rev.  C.  C.  Grafton  never  re- 
mained but  two  nights  at  the  Seminary,  and  to  my  certain  knowledge 
that  visit  was  made  at  the  especial  request  of  the  gentleman  who  en- 
tertained him.  And  I  have  the  very  best  reason  to  believe  that  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Seymour  did  not  know  of  the  Rev.  C.  C.  Grafton's  intention 
to  visit  the  Seminary  previous  to  his  arrival  upon  the  ground.  Fur- 
thermore, neither  at  that  time  or  at  any  other  time  while  I  was  in  the 
Seminary,  did  the  Rev.  C.  C.  Grafton,  either  in  a  private  room  or  any 
other  room  connected  with  the  Institution,  lecture  upon  the  subject 
of  the  Holy  Eucharist. 

He  did,  however,  at  the  request  of  a  number  of  the  students,  talk 
to  the  gentlemen  who,  by  invitation  of  the  person  who  was  entertain- 
ing him,  were  assembled  in  the  room  where  he  was  stopping.  The 
subject  upon  which  he  sj^oke  was  suggested  by  ourselves.  It  was 
" The  Temjitations  and  Trials  incident  to  a  Student's  Life. "  Ashe 
was  to  remain  in  the  Seminary  over  a  second  night,  at  our  request  he 
talked  to  the  young  men  the  following  evening.  At  that  time  he  spoke 
of  the  theoi-y  of  the  life  to  which  he  had  devoted  himself,  and  of  the 
work  in  which  he  was  engaged. 

The  community  life  had,  and  continues  to  have,  the  most  decided 
approval  of  a  number  of  the  Bishops  of  the  English  and  American 
Churches,  and  the  students  felt,  as  doubtless  did  the  Rev.  Mr.  Graf-. 


11 

tou,  that  be  was  doing  no  more  wrong  in  talking  thus  informally  to 
us  upon  the  above  subjects,  than  if  he  had  chosen  the  prophecies  or 
the  inspiration  of  Holy  Scriptures  as  his  topics.  If  he  mentioned  the 
subject  of  the  Holy  Eucharist,  it  was  in  the  most  incidental  way.  Cer- 
tainly he  did  not  give  enough  prominence  to  it  to  arouse  any  feeling, 
or  even  comment,  from  those  who  possibly  may  have  differed  from  him. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  on  this,  1 
3d  day  of  November,  1874,  >-  Joseph  H.  Johnson. 

James  M.  Knapp,  Justice  of  the  Peace.  ) 

Newbukgh,  N.  Y.,  Nov.  2d,  1874. 
My  Deae  Db.  Seymoub  : 

Having  noticed  in  the  New  York  Times  a  statement  to  the  effect 
that  Bishop  Coxe  had  sent  a  letter,  or  letters,  to  one  or  more  Dei)u- 
ties  of  the  Lower  House  of  the  General  Convention,  which  were  read 
before  the  Convention^  declaring  that  you  had  in\dted  the  Rev. 
Father  Grafton  of  the  Church  of  the  Advent,  Boston,  to  lecture  to 
the  students  on  the  subject  of  the  Holy  Communion,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  having  them  indoctrinated  in  what  are  kno'WTi  as  ''  advanced  " 
views  on  this  holy  mystery,  I  determined  to  write  to  you,  to  correct 
as  far  as  I  am  able  this  false  statement  of  Bishop  Coxe,  and  to  ex- 
plain to  you  the  real  facts  of  the  case,  and  how  Father  Grafton  came 
to  be  within  the  Seminary  close.  I  feel  that  this  statement  of  Bishop 
Coxe  must  have  taken  you  as  much  by  surj^rise  as  it  has  me. 

One  day  during  the  latter  part  of  the  year  1872,  my  friend  and 
classmate,  Harry  Torbert,  now  abroad,  came  to  my  room  and  told  me 
that  Father  Grafton  was  in  the  city,  and  that  he  intended  to  call  on 
him  that  evening  at  the  Seminary;  and  he  further  said  wouldn't  it  be 
nice  to  invite  a  few  of  the  fellows  in  my  I'oom  to  meet  him,  and  he 
might  give  us  a  little  talk.  1  said  it  would  be  very  nice  indeed.  But 
let  us  make  it  a  general  invitation  to  all  the  men,  no  matter  what  their 
views  may  be.  He  agreed  with  me,  and  we  invited  every  man  in  the 
Seminary.  The  Father  remained  two  days,  and  on  the  two  succes- 
sive evenings  he  spoke  to  us  upon  the  elementary  principles  of  the 
Christian  Life,  and  "  The  Religious  Life."  The  first  evening  it  was 
a  very  general  talk  on  the  trials  and  temptations  of  the  Christian 
Life  and  how  to  meet  them.  The  second  evening  it  was  on  the 
Religious  Life,  referring  to  the  Order  of  St.  John  the  Evangelist. 
I  declare  most  emphatically  that  the  subject  of  the  Holy  Euch'irist 
was  not  once  mentioned,  in  a  controversial  manner  or  otherwise,  and 
if  alluded  to  at  all,  it  was  in  the  most  incidental  manner,  on  the 
first  evening,  when  speaking  of  the  trials  and  temptations  of  the 
Christian  life.  It  is  a  very  sad  thing  for  me  to  know  that  Bishoji 
Coxe  could  have  made  so  untruthful  a  statement,  because  he  must 
have  been  better  informed.  There  were  jwesent  three  of  his  own 
men  on  one  of  the  evenings  referred  to,  and  two  on  the  other.  So 
had  he  chosen  to  have  been  informed  of  the  exact  nature  of  the 
lectures  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Grafton,  he  could  easily  have  done  so.    - 

During  my  entire  course  at  the  Seminary,  I  have  never  known  of 
any  other  Presbyter  of  the  Church  (or  layman)  to  give  talk  or  lec- 
tures to  the  students  without  the  knowledge  or  consent  of  the  Faculty. 
I  regret  exceedingly  now  that  we  had  not  first  obtained  your  consent, 
for  the  Rev.  Mr.  Grafton's  ;  but  coming  as  he  did  as  a  friend  of  one 
of  us,   and  without  any  intention  or  idea  of    meeting  any  of   the 


12 

students,  his  talk  was  as  much  a  surjJiise  to  himself  as  it  was  a  pleas- 
ure and  benefit  to  us.  We  did  not  think  we  were  violating  any  of 
the  rules  of  the  Seminary.  Trusting  that  this  letter  may  prove  of 
some  benefit  to  you,  I  remain,  my  dear  Doctor,  faithfully  your  friend 
and  brother  in  Christ,  Gteo.  W.  Hinkle. 

The  Rev.  G.  F.  Setmoijk,  D.D. 
Sworn  to  before  me,  by  Geo.  W.  Hinkle,  this  2d  daj  of  November, 

1874.  M.   H.   HiNCHBEY, 

Notary  Public  in  and  for  Orange  county. 

In  the  Winter  of  1872  one  of  my  fellow-students  in  the  General 
Theological  Seminary,  now  the  Eev.  H.  M.  Torbert,  informed  me  that 
he  was  expecting  a  visit  from  the  Rev.  C.  C.  Grafton  of  Boston,  Mass. 

I  told  Mr.  Torbert  that  I  would  like  very  much  to  meet  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Grafton.  I  also  remarked  that  there  were  other  students  in  the 
Seminary  of  the  same  mind.  The  day  the  Rev.  Mr.  Grafton  arrived 
at  the  Seminary,  Mr.  Torbert  and  I  agreed  that  we  would  each  at  sup- 
pei  time  invite  such  students  to  his  (Mr.  Torbert's)  room,  as  we 
thought  would  like  to  meet  him. 

When  we  were  assembled  there  were  so  many  present,  and  there 
was  so  little  opportunity  for  each  indi'\4dual  to  converse  -ndth  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Grafton,  that  it  was  suggested  that  he  make  some  sort  of  an  ad- 
dress. Upon  his  inquiring  what  he  should  speak  about,  "  The  Spirit- 
ual Life"  and  "  Personal  Religion"'  were  suggested  as  topics.  Accord- 
ingly he  addressed  us  at  some  length  in  quite  an  informal  way  on  the 
above-mentioned  subjects. 

Having  concluded  he  asked  us  to  unite  mth  him  in  prayer. 

The  prayers  used  were  Collects  from  the  Prayer  Book. 

The  next  evening  at  supper  I  again  assisted  in  inviting  students 
to  Mr.  Torbert's  room. 

When  all  were  assembled,  twice  as  many  being  present  as  on  the 
pre\-ious  evening,  all  shades  of  Seminary  theological  opinions  being 
represented,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Grafton  introduced  his  remarks  by  saying 
that  there  were  certain  counsels  in  Holy  Scripture  which  were  intend- 
ed by  our  Blessed  Loi'd  for  those  who  could  receive  them.  He  cited 
St.  Matthew  xix. ,  16th  to  end,  as  substantiating  the  statement.  He 
illustrated  his  remarks  principally  by  means  of  St.  Matthew  x.  He 
closed  by  calling  our  attention  to  the  lives  of  the  Holy  Apostles,  and 
spoke  of  the  revival  of  the  "  Religioiis  Life  "  in  our  own  Church. 

I  am  unable  to  recall  any  allusions  to  the  Holy  Eucharist  in  either 
address. 

The  C.  B.  S.  Was  not  mentioned. 

There  was  some  discussion  the  next  day  among  the  students  with 
regard  to  what  had  been  said,  but  it  arose  principally  from  his  inter- 
pretation of  St.  Matthew  xix. 

It  was  without  the  permission,  consent,  or  knowledge,  of  the  Rev. 
Geo.  F.  Seymour,  D.D.,  Dean  of  the  Seminary,  that  the  offer  of  hos- 
l^itality  was  extended  to  the  Rev.  C.  C.  Grafton,  that  the  several  stu- 
dents were  invited  to  the  room  for  the  purpose  of  meeting  him,  and 
that  the  suggestions  as  to  the  topics  upon  which  he  should,  talk  were 
made.  Waltek  Russell  Gaednek,  Deacon 

of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  Diocese  of  New  York. 
Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me,  this  7th  day  of  November,  1874. 
William  L.  DeLacet,  Justice  of  the  Peace,  Amenia,  N.  Y. 


APPENDIX 

TO  THE  ISSUE  OF  FACTS  BETWEEN  BISHOP  COXE  AND 
PEOFESSOE  SEYMOUR 

The  following  affidavits  of  the  Eev.  Heury  M.  Torbert,  arrived  too 
late  for  insertion  in  "The  Issue  of  Fact  between  Bishop  Coxe  and 
Professor  Seymour,"  receatly  published.  These  affidavits,  together 
with  a  letter  from  the  Eev.  C.  C.  Grafton,  M.A.,  corroborative  of  the 
second  affidavit  of  the  Eev.  Jlr.  Torbert,  are  now  added  as  an  Appen- 
dix. It  may  be  worth  while  briefly  to  state  the  points  in  the  case. 
Bishop  Coxe  charged  Professor  Seymour,  before  the  House  of  Clerical 
and  Lay  Deputies  of  the  General  Convention,  with  having  ' '  permitted 
and  invited  the  Eev.  C.  C.  Grafton,  M.A.,  to  deliver  lectures  in  a 
private  room  in  the  Seminary,"  and  with  having  "introduced  him  rh 
a  volunteer  Professor."  Bishop  Coxe  is  the  accuser  ;  in  support  of  his 
accusations  he  and  his  friends  adduce  not  one  single  word  of  positive 
testimony.  In  reply  to  Bishop  Coxe's  allegations  the  Eev.  Professor 
Seymour  swears  that  he  never  permitted  the  Eev.  Mr.  Grafton  to 
deliver  lectures  in  the  Seminary  at  any  time  or  on  any  subject ;  that 
he  never  invited  him  to  do  so,  or  introduced  him  into  the  Seminary 
for  the  pui-pose.  The  Eev.  Mr.  Grafton,  the  person  whom  Professor 
Seymour  is  alleged  to  have  thus  "permitted,  invited,  and  introduced," 
swears  that  these  allegations  are  not  true.  This  positive  testimony  of 
the  two  jDrincipal  parties  involved  in  the  charges  of  Bishop  Coxe,  who 
know  with  certainty  the  facts,  and  whose  character  and  standing  are 
unimpeached  as  Presbyters  in  the  Church  of  God,  must  settle  the 
matter  in  the  minds  of  all  Christian  gentlemen.  In  addition,  however, 
to  this,  eleven  students  who  were  in  the  Seminary  at  the  time  the 
lectures  of  the  Eev.  Mr.  Grafton  were  delivered,  and  ten  of  whom 
were  present  at  either  one  or  both  lectures,  and  one  who  refused  to 
attend  "because  he  understood  that  the  Dean  knew  nothing  about 
the  matter,"  unite  in  their  testimony,  corroborating  in  the  strongest 
possible  manner  the  statements  of  Prof.  Seymour  and  the  Eev.  C.  C, 


Grafton.  Besides,  Prof.  Seymour  declares  under  oath  tliat  at  the  vis- 
itation of  Bishop  Coxe,  in  the  Spring  of  1873,  when  the  Bishop  claims 
to  have  obtained  the  information  wliich  he  embodied  in  his  letter  of 
accusation,  which  was  read  in  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies, 
he  (Prof.  Seymour)  stated  in  terms  too  strong  and  clear  to  admit  the 
possibility  of  mistake,  the  real  facts  of  the  case,  and  Professor  Hall, 
who  was  present,  swears  that  this  statement  is  correct. 

On  the  side  of  the  accuser  there  is  nothing  save  his  own  assertions 
and  the  negative  testimony  of  two  witnesses.  It  has  been  pointed  out 
that  there  are  discrepancies  in  the  affidavits  of  the  different  students, 
as  to  minor  details  ;  this  is  true,  and  is  to  be  expected  when  a  number 
of  persons  undertake  to  recall  transactions  even  after  a  few  days,  not 
to  say  two  years,  as  in  the  present  instance.  Had  the  testimony  of  all 
these  witnesses  agreed  in  every  particular,  lawyers  would  at  once  have 
suspected  collusion,  and  said  that  either  one  hand  drew  the  affidavits 
or  one  person  revised  them. 

Again  it  has  been  remarked  that  some  of  the  witnesses  swear  that 
the  Rev.  Prof.  Seymour  did  not  know  of  the  lectures  of  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Grafton  ;  this  is  true  :  but  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  persons  unac- 
customed to  the  theory  and  laws  of  evidence  are  apt  to  fall  into  the 
mistake  of  stating  absolutely  that  of  which  they  are  morally  sure. 
Probably  in  several  instances  these  were  the  first  affidavits  these  gen- 
tlemen ever  made. 

The  testimony  speaks  for  itself  ;  the  circumstances  were  such  that 
it  would  have  been  in  the  last  degree  unlikely  that  the  acting  Dean 
should  have  known  anything  of  the  impromptu  lectures,  and  to  the 
best  of  their  knowledge  and  belief,  every  student  who  was  then  in 
the  Seminary,  and  cognizant  of  the  facts,  would  be  ready  to  swear 
that  Prof.  Seymour  knew  nothing  about  the  delivery  of  the  lectures 
at  the  time,  that  it  could  hardly  have  been  within  the  limits  of  possi- 
bility for  him  to  have  known  beforehand  of  what  occurred  as  it  were 
in  the  way  of  accident. 

Once  more  :  the  Rev.  Mr.  Torbert,  in  anticipation  of  a  visit  from 
the  Rev.  C.  C.  Grafton,  not  knowing  within  the  limits  of  two  or  three 
weeks  when  he  would  come,  asked  the  acting  Dean's  permission  to 
entertain  the  Rev.  Mr.  Grafton  as  a  guest  in  the  Seminary  during  his 
brief  stay  in  the  city.     This  permission   was  given.     Mr.   Torbert 


3 

made  this  request  in  obedience  to  a  rule  of  the  Faculty  which  directs 
that  ' '  No  student  or  occupant  of  a  student's  room  in  the  Seminary 
shall  allow  any  one  to  share  his  room  with  him  as  a  guest  without 
the  special  permission  of  the  Dean,  or  in  his  absence  of  a  resident 
Professor."  In  making  the  above  request,  Mr.  Torbert  desired,  in 
addition,  the  use  of  a  lecture  room,  that  the  Bev.  Mr.  Grafton  might 
meet  socially  a  mimber  of  the  stiidents  who  wished  to  call  upon  him. 
Even  this  request  was  refused  ;  how  much  more  woxild  a  veto  have 
been  put  upon  lectures,  had  any  such  idea  been  broached.  No  re- 
quest for  permission  "to  visit  and  indoctrinate"  the  students,  was 
therefore  ever  made  to  the  acting  Dean.  Nor  when  in  this  case, 
as  in  many  others,  he  permitted  the  reception  of  a  guest,  did  he 
conceive  that  he  received  any  such  request,  or  gave  any  such  permis- 
sion. It  may  be  added  that  the  acting  Dean  receives  on  an  average 
full  thirty  or  forty  requests  each  month  of  various  kinds  from  the 
seventy  students  in  residence,  and  it  is  scarcely  possible  for  him  to 
keep  them  all  distinctly  in  remembrance  after  the  lapse  of  two  years. 
The  Rev.  Mr.  Grafton  subsequently  came  to  the  Seminary,  remained 
two  nights  as  the  guest  of  Mr.  Torbert,  and  when  about  to  depart 
called  upon  the  acting  Doan.  Then  for  the  first  time  the  Rev.  Prof. 
Seymour  became  aware  that  the  Rev.  Mr.  Grafton  had  been  in  the 
Seminary.  In  that  interview  nothing  vAatever  was  said  by  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Grafton  about  his  talks  with  the  students,  nor  did  the  Rev.  Prof. 
Seymour  learn  that  he  had  held  such  conversations  with  them  imtil 
some  time  after  he  had  left. 

If  any  one  thinks  it  strange  that  the  acting  Dean  should  not 
know  what  is  being  said  and  done  in  the  ffly  different  rooms  of  the 
two  Seminary  Buildings,  it  will  suffice  to  state  in  the  way  of  explana- 
tion that  in  the  first  place  the  Professors'  houses  are  as  distinct  from 
the  apartments  occupied  by  the  students  as  are  the  separate  dwellings 
in  an  ordinary  street  of  a  city  from  each  other  :  and  in  the  second 
place,  that  the  present  incumbent  is  a  Professor,  as  well  as  acting 
Dean,  and  is  obliged  in  consequence  to  do  something  else,  even  if  it 
were  necessary  thus  to  look  after  Candidates  for  Holy  Orders,  than 
to  keep  the  students  constantly  under  his  eye. 

It  is  worth  while  to  remark  that  while  in  the  General  Theological 
Seminary,  the  Rev.  C.   C.    Grafton  was   not   '"■  permitted,    invited  or 


introduced  lo  deliver  lectures  "  to  tlie  students,  a  great  outery  is  made  ; 
at  the  Tlieological  School  at  Cambridge,  Mass.,  he  did  deliver  a  lecture 
before  the  students  in  the  preseyice  of  one  of  the  Professors  of  the  Institution, 
and  the  fact  occasioned  no  complaint  or  even  remark  in  any  quarter. 

Rev.  Mk.  Tokbert's  Affidavits. 

I,  Henry  Martyn  Torbert,  a  Presbyter  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  of  America,  solemnly  and  sincerely  declare  as  follows  : 

1.  In  the  Winter  of  one  thous^and  eight  hundred  and  seventy- 
two,  I  was  n,  member  of  the  Senior  Class  at  the  General  Theological 
Seminary,  New  York  City. 

2.  I  was  acquainted  with  the  Rev.  C.  C.  Grafton,  and  had  visited 
him  at  his  own  residence. 

3.  I  invited  him  to  call  np(m  me  at  uiy  rooms  in  the  Seminary 
any  time  he  might  be  in  New  York. 

4.  In  the  month  of  December,  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and 
seventy-two,  in  expectation  of  a  visit  from  him  during  his  proposed 
stiiy  in  the  city.  I  requested  the  then  acting  Dean,  Professor  Sey- 
mour, to  grant  the  use  of  a  Lecture  Room  in  order  that  the  Reverend 
C  C.  Grafton  might  meet  socially  a  number  of  the  students  who 
wished  to  call  upon  him  ;  and  that  request  was  distinctly  denied. 

5.  The  visit  of  the  Rev.  C.  C.  Grafton  on  the  tenth  and  eleventh 
of  December,  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  seventy-two,  was  a 
private  one,  and  that  the  meeting  of  a  number  of  the  students  in  my 
rooms  was  entirely  a  matter  of  jjrivate  friendship,  and  without  advice 
sought  or  permissiim  reqiiired  from  any  Seminary  authority  ;  nor  was 
the  Dean,  Prefessor  Seymour,  aware  of  the  meeting  taking  place  until 
after  it  had  happened. 

6.  That  was  the  only  occasion  in  which  the  Rev.  C.  C.  Grafton 
met  the  students  and  had  talks  with  them. 

7.  The  talk  of  the  Rev.  C.  C.  Grafton  upon  that  occasion  was  en- 
tirely impromptu,  by  request  of  one  or  more  of  the  students,  and 
had  reference  to  piety  and  regnolation  of  heart  and  life,  and  to  the  plan 
and  object  of  the  Brotherhood  of  which  he  is  a  member,  and  not  lo 
any  matter  of  doctrine. 

8.  In  particular  in  reference  to  the  Holy  Eticharist  which  is 
asserted  to  have  been  the  subject  of  a  Lecture,  any  allusion  made  to 
it  on  that  occasion  was  purely  incidental  and  transitory,  and  that 
there  was  no  exposition  of  the  doctrinal  views  of  the  Rev.  C.  C. 
Grafton  touching  the  Eucharist. 

9.  I  am  not  now,  nor  ever  have  been,  a  member  of  the  Confrater- 
nity of  the  Blessed  Sacrament,  and  that  the  Rev.  C.  C.  Grafton's 
visit  had  not  the  slightest  connection  with  that  Society,  nor  were  my 
rooms  used  for  any  of  its  purposes,  nor  was  the  subject  once  men- 
tioned during  his  visit. 

And  I  make  this  solemn  Declaration,  conscientiously  believing 
the  same  to  be  true,  and  by  virtue  of  the  provisions  of  an  Act  made 


and  passed  in  the  5tli  and  6th  years  of  the  reign  of  His  late 
Majesty  King  William  the  Fourth,  intituled  "An  Act  to  repeal  an  Act 
of  the  jjreseut  Session  of  Parliament,  intituled  'An  Act  for  the  more 
eflfectual  abolition  of  Oaths  and  Affirmations  taken  and  made  in  Yari- 
OU3  Departments  of  the  State,  and  to  siTbstitute  Declarations  in  lieu 
thereof,  and  for  the  more  entire  suppression  of  voluntary  and  extra- 
judicial Oaths  and  Affidavits,'  and  to  make  other  provisions  for  the 
abolition  of  unnecessaiy  Oaths." 

Declared  at  Oxford,  in  the  County  of  Ox- ") 

ford,  in  England,  this  seventeenth  day  | 

of  November,  one  thousand  eight  hun-  }-  Henbt  Maktyn  Tobbeet. 

dred  and  seventy-four.      Before  me,         | 
Thomas  M.  Davenport,  Notary  Public.       J 

To  ALL  TO  WHOM  THESE  PRESENTS  SHLiVLL  COME  :  I,  Thomas  Mar- 
riott Davenpoi-t,  Notary  Public,  duly  authorized,  admitted  and 
sworn,  residing  and  practising  in  Oxford,  in  the  County  of  Oxford, 
in  the  United  liingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  do  hereby 
certify  that  Henry  Martyn  Torbert,  the  person  named  in  the  Paper, 
Writing,  or  Declaration  on  the  other  side  written,  did  duly  and 
solemnly  declare  to  the  truth  thereof,  before  me  on  the  day  of  the 
date  thereof,  and  that  the  name  "Henry  Martyn  Torbert "  thereto 
subscribed  is  of  the  proper  handwriting  of  the  said  Henry  Martyn 
Torbert. 

In  Testimony  whereof  I  have  hereunto  subscribed  my  name 
,  -— ■ —  .  and  affixed  my  Seal  of  Office  this  seventeenth   day  of 

<  SEAL  i  November,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight 

'  — v^  '  hundred  and  seventy-four. 

Thom^vs  M.  Davenport,  Notary  Public. 


I,  Henry  Martin  Torbert,  a  Presbyter  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  of  America,  solemnly  and  sincerely  declare  as  follows  : 
On  the  fifth  of  February  last  (one  thousand  eight  hundred  and 
seventy-four)  at  a  reception  given  by  the  Rev.  Professor  Seymour,  in 
his  house,  I  had  a  conversation  with  the  Rev.  Professor  Buel,  in 
which  I  explained  the  nature  of  the  Rev.  C.  C.  Grafton's  visit  ttj  me 
at  my  rooms  in  the  General  Theological  Seminary  fourteen  months 
before — corrected  bis  false  imi:)ressiona,  and  received  from  him  the 
assurance  that  no  impropriety^  had  been  committed,  and  was  told  by 
him  "You  may  tell  Mr.  Graftou  what  my  impressions  were." 

And  I  make  this  solemn  Declaration,  conscientiously  believing  the 
same  to  l)e  true,  and  by  virtue  of  the  provisions  of  an  Act  made  and 
passed  in  the  5th  and  6th  years  of  the  reign  of  his  late  Majesty 
King  William  the  Fourth,  intituled  "An  Act  to  repeal  an  Act  of  the 
present  Session  of  Parliament,  intituled  'An  Act  for  the  more  eflfectual 


OORRESPONDENOE 


WITH   THE 


REV.  GEO.  F.  SEYMOUR,  D.D., 


Report  of  the  Committee  of  Thirteen 


TTIERF.LTON    AND   0!f 


T1ie  Powers  of  the  House  of  Deputies  of  the  General 
Convention,  and  the  Standing  Committees 

IN  CASES  OF  BISHOPS-ELECT. 

KXTRACTED   FROM   THR 

JOURNAL   OF    THE    SPECIAL    CONVENTION 

or    THK 

,1, 

HELD     IN 

THE    CATHEDRAL,    CHICAGO. 

l-phruary  .id,  4th  and  5th,  A.  D.  1875. 


OOERESPONDEI^OE. 


On  the  Second  Day  of  the  ^Special  Convention  the  following 
was  presented,  read,  and  on  motion,  adopted  : 

Whereas,  A  correspondence  between  certain  members  of  the  ConTentioK 
and  the  Rev.  Geo.  F.  Seymour,  D.  D.,  elected  Bishop  of  this  Diocese  at  the  last 
Annual  Convention,  has  been  brought  to  the  notice  of  this  body,  as  follows: 

"Chicago.  Dec.  29,  1874. 
"  Reverend  and  Dear  Sir: 

"  Feeling  that  great  wrong  was  done  to  yourself  by  the  refusal  of  the  Honse 
of  Deputies,  at  the  late  General  Convention,  to  consent  to  your  conseeration  as 
Bishop  of  Illinois,  as  well  as  in  the  cruel  attack  made  upon  you  pendi»g  the 
discussion,  and  regarding  also  the  action  of  that  House,  in  some  respects,  was 
witliout  precedent,  unjustifiable,  and  revolutionary,  and  conscious,  moreover, 
that  your  vindication  was  ample  and  complete,  and  satisfied  more  than  ever  of 
your  high  character  as  a  Christian  gentleman  and  scholar,  and  of  your  peeulsai- 
fitness  for  the  great  office  which  we  would  rejoice  to  see  you  fill,  we  have  taken 
part  with  other  of  your  friends  in  efforts  to  ascertain  the  voice  of  this  Diocese 
in  respect  to  again  submitting  your  name  to  the  authorities  of  the  Church  as 
our  Bishop-elect.  The  result  is,  after  the  receipt  of  reliable  information  from 
the  entire  Diocese,  that  we  are  convinced  that  you  can  be  re-elected  at  oui-  ap- 
proaching Convention  by  a  very  decided  majority. 

"But  under  existing  circumstances  our  sense  of  propriety  dictates  ihat 
your  name  ought  not  to  be  used  before  that  body  in  this  connection,  unless  yo« 
are  first  advised  of  the  fact  that  such  use  is  in  contemplation. 

"  In  thus  communicating  with  you,  the  undersigned  would  beg  to  foe  ander- 
stood  as  acting  and  speaking  not  in  any  representative  relation,  but  only  for 
themselves  as  individuals.  Numerous  friends  of  yours  in  every  part  of  this 
Diocese  would,  without  doubt,  cheerfully  join  us  in  this  letter  wete  the  oppor- 
tunity oflered,  but  this  would  require  so  much  delay  that,  in  view  of  the  rapidly- 
approaching  time  of  our  Convention,  we  venture  thus  to  address  you  without 
postponement  for  further  signatures. 

"  With  sincerest  esteem,  we  are  your  brothers  in  Christ, 

GEO.  F.  CUSHMAN,  ©.  I>. 
CLINTON  LOCKE,  D.  I>„ 
J.  H.  KNOWLES,  A.  M. 
LUCIUS  B.  OTIS. 
S.  CORNING  JUDD. 
C.  R.  LARRABEE.'" 


"  (Jknkrai,  Tni;oi,o(iic al  Seminauv.  Jjiu.  15,  1875. 
"  My  Dear  Bkethkkn  : 

"  When  I  had  the  honor,  hist  Septeinlier,  to  receive  at  the  hands  of  a  com- 
mittee of  the  clergj'  and  hxity  of  Illinois,  in  convention  assemliled,  an  invitation 
to  accept  the  office  of  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  to  which  I  had  just  been  elected, 
I  made  use  of  the  following  words  in  the  course  of  the  reply  wliich  I 
returned  :  '  I  shall  wish  you  all  to  give  yourselves  with  me  to  the  things  vvhioli 
make  for  peace,  and  to  devote  yourselves  with  all  your  powers  to  promote  the 
spread  of  God's  kingdom  throughout  the  great  Empire  entrusted  to  our  common 
care.' 

"  Had  it  been  the  will  of  God  that  I  should  have  been  consecrated  your 
Bishop,  this  cherished  wish  of  my  heart  to  harmonize  and  unite  the  Diocese  in 
working  together  for  the  salvation  of  all  men  would  have  been  the  controlling 
principle  of  my  walk  and  conversation  among  you.  As  it  is,  although  withheld 
from  serving  you  as  your  chief  pastor,  I  am  nevertheless  bound  by  every  con- 
sideration of  inclination  and  duty  to  regard  the  interests  of  your  Diocese  as  of 
])aramount  importance,  and  to  prevent,  as  far  as  I  can,  the  personal  kindness  and 
o'enerositv  of  friends  from  becoming  a  cause  of  division,  and  bitterness  and 
strife. 

"  I  may  mention  in  this  connection  that  one  of  the  reasons,  not  least  in  its 
weight,  in  bringing  me  to  a  decision  to  accept  the  high  office  with  which  the 
Diocese  of  Illinois  had  honored  me,  was  the  fact  that  the  opposing  candidate  in 
the  election  had  signed  my  testimonials,  and  was  one  of  the  Committee  of  Invi- 
tation who  pledged  to  me,  in  the  event  of  my  acceptance  of  the  Episcopate  of 
Illinois,  '  a  cordial  welcome  a)ui  hearty  support.'  1  felt  assured  by  the  presence 
of  his  name  that  the  opposition  in  the  Convention  was  simply  such  as  is  very 
likely  to  appear  in  any  large  body  of  men,  and  that  when  the  election  was  made 
all  parties  gracefully,  cheerfully,  and  magnanimously  acquiesced  in  the  result ; 
and  that  hence  it  would  be  my  delightful  privilege  to  find  a  united  Diocese 
ready  to  go  forward  with  heart  and  hand  to  prosecute  the  great  work  which 
God  had  given  it  to  do.  Such,  I  believe,  would  have  been  the  case,  and  in 
thinking  so  1  have  in  mind  the  kindness  and  generosity  of  the  clergy  and  laity 
of  Illinois,  rather  than  any  personal  qualitication  or  merit  on  the  part  of  him 
who  would  have  been  your  Bishop. 

"After  what  lias  occurred,  however,  within  the  past  three  or  four  months, 
it  would  scarcely  be  possible  for  rae  to  be  presented  as  a  candidate  for  re-elec- 
tion in  Illinois  without  raising  questions  which  would  generate  debate,  perhaps 
bitter  strife.  This  I  could  not  endure,  and  hence  I  must  beg  that  my  name  be 
not  used  in  the  approaching  Convention  in  Illinois. 

"  Let  me  add  one  or  two  things,  dear  brethren,  in  conclusion,  which  I  deem 
to  be  due  to  you  and  to  myself.  I  shoidd  never  for  one  moment  have  embar- 
rassed the  Diocese  of  Illinois,  as  the  event  has  proved  that  I  unwittingly  did, 
by  accepting  the  office  to  which  I  was  chosen,  had  I  been  aware  of  the  feeling 
of  many  of  my  bretliren  of  the  clergy  and  laity  throughout  this  country  toward 


me,  as  was  manifested  in  the  technical  majority  but  numerical  minority  of  tlie 
House  of  Deputies  against  my  consecration. 

"  My  life  and  ministry  had  been  passed  for  twenty  years  in  the  midst  of 
my  own  people,  and,  conscious  of  my  own  integrity  and  innocence  without 
reproach  or  breath  of  disappfoval  from  the  first,  and  holding  the  highest  and 
most  responsible  office  which  a  Presbyter  can  occupy,  as  representing  the  whole 
Church,  in  presiding  over  the  General  Theological  Seminary,  I  allowed  my  name 
to  go  before  the  General  Convention  as  the  Bishop-elect  of  Illinois,  with  entire 
confidence  as  to  the  result,  because  there  was  not  then,  to  the  best  of  my  knowl- 
edge and  belief,  nor  is  there  now,  any  just  reason  why  1  should  not  be  con- 
secrated. 

"  Irrespective  of  all  personal  considerations,  the  course  pursued  toward  me 
by  my  brethren  of  tlie  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies  in  the  recent  General 
Convention  will  not,  1  have  firm  faith  to  believe,  be  sustained  by  the  sober  sec- 
ond thought  of  the  present  generation,  or  the  impartial  judgment  of  posterity. 
1  do  not  wish  to  be  understood  in  saying  this  to  reflect  in  the  slightest  degree 
upon  the  motives  of  the  members  of  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies. 
Doubtless  they  thought  they  were  doing  God  service,  and  I  sincerely  pray  thai 
their  grievous  mistake,  as  I  consider  it,  may  not  be  laid  to  their  charge,  and 
that  no  harm  may  in  consequence  redound  to  the  Church,  but  that  He  who 
maketh  the  wrath  of  man  to  praise  Him  may  overcome  this  action  to  the  ulti- 
mate good  of  all  concerned. 

"  1  thank  you,  dear  brethren,  for  your  generous  interest  in  me,  and  your 
very  kind  note ;  and  1  beg  you,  if  the  fitting  opportunity  be  presented,  to  assure 
all  my  brethren  of  the  clergy  and  laity  of  Illinois  of  my  sincere  respect  and 
aflFectionate  regard. 

"  Praying  God,  dear  brethren,  to  have  you  and  the  Diocese  of  Illinois  ever 
in  His  holy  keeping,  and  to  guide  your  counsels,  and  pour  upon  you  His  choicest 
blessings,  I  remain  faithfully  your  brother  in  (.'hrist, 

•'GEORGE  F.  SEYMOUR." 

And,  whkrkas,  Such  correspondence  presents  grave  questions  bearing  not 
only  upon  the  course  pursued  hy  the  House  of  Deputies  of  the  late  General 
Convention  with  reference  to  the  case  of  said  Rev.  Dr  Seymour  as  Bishop-elect 
of  Illinois,  but  also  indirectly  upon  the  extent  of  the  authority  devolving  upon 
the  Standing  Committees  of  the  various  Dioceses  in  regard  to  any  Bishop-elect  ; 
therefore. 

Resolved.  That  said  correspondence  be  and  is  hereby  referred  to  a  Select 
Committee  of  thirteen  members,  to  consist  of  seven  clergymen  and  six  laymen : 
and  which  committee  shall  consider  and  report  whether  any,  and,  if  any,  wiiat 
action  is  expedient  to  be  taken  by  this  body  in  the  premises. 


6 


The    President    appointed    said    Committee    of   Thirteen    as 
follows : 


The  Rev.  Geo.  F.  Cushman,  D.  D. 
The  Rev.  Clinton  Locke,  D.  D. 
The  Rev.  Wm.  B.  Corbyn,  D.  D. 
The  Rev.  C.  H.  W.  Stocking,  D.  D. 
The  Rev.  Robt.  McMurdy,  I).  D.,  LL.  D. 
The  Rev.  Walter  F.  Lloyd,  LL.  D. 
The  Rev.  Frank  M.  Gregg. 


Mr.  S.  Corning  .Judd. 
Mr.  S.  H.  Treat. 
Mr.  L.  B.  Otis. 
Mr.  .James  K.  Edsall. 
Mr.  Edwin  S.  Fowler. 
Mr.  E.  M.  M.  Clarke. 


EEPORT   OF   COMMITTEE. 


On  the  Third  Day  of  the  Special  Convention  the  Committee 
of  Thirteen,  to  Avhom  was  referred  a  correspondence  between 
certain  members  of  the  Convention  and  the  Rev.  George  F. 
Seymour,  D.  D.,  elected  Bishop  of  this  Diocese  at  the  last  Annual 
Convention,  presented  the  following 

REPORT: 

The  uiidei-signed  Committee  of  Thirteen,  to  whom  was  referred  the  corre- 
spondence between  certain  members  of  the  Convention  and  the  Rev.  Dr.  Sey- 
mour, wlio  was  elected  Bisliop  of  this  Diocese  at  the  last  Annual  Convention, 
lield  in  September — and  which  correspondence  was  so  referred  with  instruc- 
tions to  consider  and  report  whether  any,  and,  if  any,  what  action  is  expedient 
to  be  taken  by  this  body  with  regard  to  questions  referred  to  in  such  corre- 
.spondence  and  in  the  preamble  of  the  resolutions  making  the  reference — having 
possessed  ourselves  of  the  facts  in  the  premises,  and  having,  in  view  of  its 
gravity,  given  the  subject  matter  deliberate  consideration,  beg  leave  to  report 
as  follows : 

In  the  course  pursued  by  the  House  of  Deputies  of  the  late  General  Conven- 
tion, in  reference  to  the  Bishop-elect  of  Illinois,  inquisitorial  or  judicial  powers 
were  assumed  and  acted  upon.  Indeed,  the  President  of  that  House,  since  the 
adjournment  of  the  Convention,  having  iirst  decided  for  himself  that  a  certain 
view  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  involved  false  doctrine,  has  publicly  declared  that 
"the  question  which  engrossed  that  eight  days"  secret  session  was  to  ascertain 
how  far  Dr.  Seymour  was  implicated  in  holding  or  encouraging  that  false 
doctrine;"  that  he  has  "never  known  an  investigation  conducted  with  more 
patience,  fairness,  and  deep  anxiety  to  ascertain  the  truth;"  that  "the  evi- 
d<ncc  was  painfully  conflicting ;"  that  his  "  own  mind,  and  that  of  many  others, 
tiuctuated  for  a  while  between  contending  impressions;"  that,  "in  the  out- 
come, till'  soundest  and  best  men  arrived  at  opj}vsite  conclusions ;"  that  he  "never 
acted  with  move  Judicial  clearness  and  calmness;"  that  he  is  -'persuaded 
that  this  is  true  of  every  member"  of  what  he  calls  "the  majority"  [but 
which,  in  fact,  was  the  minority,  and  only  technically  a  majority  through  a  sys- 
tem which  counts  in  the  negative  certain  individual  votes  cast  in  the  affirmative  ^i 
that  the  "rejection  of  the  man  so  influentially  sustained  was"  *  *  *  -'a 
clear,  decided  and  judicial  condemnation  of  that  doctrine;"  that  "by  tliat 
judicial  act  the  Church  stands  forth  in  the  glory  of  her  faithfulness  and  in- 
tegrity," &c.  It  thus  appears,  from  the  open  avowal  of  the  Presiding  Officer 
of  that  body    [himself  a   lawyer  before    he   became  a   priest;    and   hence  his 


s 

testimony  regarding  the  capacity  in  which  his  House  acted  is  all  the  more  siig- 
nificant] — it  thus  appears,  we  say,  from  his  avowal,  as  was  unquestionably  the 
case,  that  the  House  of  Deputies,  in  eifect,  if  not  in  fact,  resolved  itself  into  an 
ecclesiastical  court,  and  pronounced  "judicial  condenmotion"  upon  Dr.  Sey- 
mour and  of  "  that  doctrine."  The  chief  objection  against  the  consecration  of 
the  Bishop-elect  was  the  imputation  of  "holding  or  encouraging"  "that 
doctrine,"  which  Dr.  Craik  choose)*  to  denounce,  as  if  i.r  catlvdni,  .is  being 
"false." 

What  the  House  of  Deputies  may  rightfully  do  iu  the  case  of  an  election  to 
the  Episcopate  within  six  months  preceding  a  session  of  the  General  Conven- 
tion, the  same  may  the  Standing  Committees  of  the  variotis  Dioceses  lawfully 
claim  as  their  prerogative  in  regard  to  such  an  election  occurring  at  any  other 
time  during  the  recess  of  the  General  Convention.  It  follows,  therefore,  that 
if  the  Ijower  House  of  the  late  General  Convention  had  the  right  to  assume 
judicial  functions,  and  try  Dr.  Seymoui-,  ami  pronounce  "judicial  condemna- 
tion" of  his  supposed  doctrines,  then  forty-tive  Standing  Committees  may  re- 
solve themselves  into  as  many  courts,  and  try  any  Bishop-elect,  and  pronounce 
judgment  of  "condemnation"  upon  A/.v  supposed  doctrines.  The  trial  of  Dr. 
Seymour  was  in  secret  session,  without  citation  to  the  accused;  and,  he  not 
being  allowed,  when  inf(n-med  of  the  extraordinary  proceedings,  to  be  present, 
to  hear  the  accusations  made,  or  to  confront  the  witnesses  brought  .igainst  him. 
or  to  have  one  word  of  explanation  ;  nor,  yet,  even  to  be  informe<l,  in  liLs  ex- 
clusion, as  to  the  proceedings  of  the  investigation.  And  what  must  be  the  tor- 
ture of  any  Bishop-elect,  if,  instead  of  one  investigation,  he  must  pass 
the  ordeal  of  forty-five?  Let  us,  therefore,  examine,  and  see  what  in  reality 
are  the  rights  of  the  Diocese  and  of  the  House  of  Deputies,  or  of  Standing 
(V)mmittees  (as  the  case  may  lie),  in  regard  to  a  JJishop-elect  :  and  let  us  nl.so 
ascertain  if  there  be  iiny  such  inquisitorial  authoriTv. 

It  has  been  claimed,  in  substance,  by  the  foremost  of  those  vvho  opposed 
the  consecration  of  the  candidate,  that  the  (Convention  of  a  Diocese  can  only 
nominate  the  candidate  for  Bishop,  and  that  it  then  remains  for  the  House  of 
Deputies  or  the  Standing  Committees  (as  the  case  may  be)  to  confirm  the  nomi- 
inee,  or  to  refuse  to  do  so,  as  they  may  see  fit,  in  the  way  of  granting  or  with- 
holding "their  assent  to  his  consecration  ;  '  or,  in  other  words,  to  elect  or  reject 
the  candidate  nominated,  at  their  own  good  pleasure,  and  whether  their  action 
be  foimded  in  reason  or  unreason.  If  this  be  true,  we  have  a  system  of  cen- 
tralization in  the  Church,  as  dangerous  as  it  is  odious  ;  and  it  is  upon  this 
theory  that  the  House  of  Depiities  seem  to  have  acted  in  the  late  case  of  Dr. 
Seymour,  it  would  seem  that  his  election  or  rejection,  under  this  theory,  was 
made  to  depend  upon  whether  or  not  he  could  survive  the  ordeal  of  a  secret, 
e:x  parte  "judicial  investigation."  But  against  such  theory  your  Committee 
interpose  the  Fou)tli  Article  of  the  General  Constitution,  which  provides  that — 

"  The  Bishop,  or  BLshops,  in  every  Diocese  shall  be  chosen  agreeably  to 
such  rules  as  shall  be  fixed  by  the  Convention  of  that  Diocese." 


9 


It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  the  choice  of  the  Bishop  rests  with  the  Conven- 
tion of  the  Diocese.  This  being  made,  Canon  13,  of  Title  II,  of  the  Canons  of 
the  General  Convention  treats  of  the  person  chosen  as  "  Bishop-elect,"  who  is 
required,  before  his  consecration,  to  produce  to  the  Bishops  of  the  Chvircli, 
"  from  the  Convention  bi/  whom  he  is  elected,  evidence  of  such  election  ;  and 
from  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies  in  General  Convention  "  (or  from 
the  Standing  Committees  of  the  diflerent  Dioceses  if  the  election  took  phioe 
"  during  tlie  recess  of  the  General  Convention,"  and  not  •■  within  six  month.'< 
before  the  meeting"  of  the  same)  "evidence  of  their  approbation  of  his  testi- 
monials,  and  of  their  assent  to  his  consecration;"  also  certain  certificates.  Th^ 
canon  thereupon  proceeds  to  give  the  form  of  such  certificates  as  •'  Testimon/f 
from  the  members  of  the  Convention  in  the  Diocese  from  whence  the  person  is 
recommended  foi-  consecration."  and  as  "  Testimony  from  the  House  of  Clerical 
and  L;\y  Deputies  in  General  Convention."  It  will  thus  be  seen  that,  by  the 
letter  of  the  canon,  the  Bishop-elect  must  produce  from  the  House  of  Deputies 
or  the  Standing  Committees  (as  the  case  may  require)  :  Jirst,  evidence  of  their 
probation  of  his  testimonials  (not  of  the  choice  of  the  Diocesan  Convention;) 
secondly,  evidence  of  "  their  assent  to  his  consecration  '  (not  that  they  confirui 
the  nomination:)  and,  thirdly,  certificates  containing  certain  "Testimony." 
The  object  of  re((uiring  these  certificates  is  two-fold.  The  one  must  be  the 
credentials  or  "  testimonials  "  from  the  Diocesan  Convention  ;  the  other  is  the 
method  by  which  the  "assent  to  the  consecration"  is  to  be  expi-essed — or,  ia 
other  words,  is  the  "  form  prescribed  "  for  tlie  "  evidence  of  the  consent." 

To  the  proposition  that  the  House  of  Deputies,  or  the  Standing  (Commit- 
tees, whichever  are  to  act,  may  or  may  not  give  their  '•  assent  to  the  consecra- 
tion "  as  they  may  please,  we  answer  that  such  a  construction  was  never  in- 
tended by  the  law-makers  ;  for  that,  if  tenable,  would  subject  the  choice  of  the 
Diocesan  Convention  to  the  arbitrary  will  of  the  House  of  Deputies  or  of  the 
Committees,  and  would  be  in  manifest  conflict  with  the  constitutional  provision 
giving  the  choice  of  the  Bishop  to  the  Diocese.  The  eifect  would  be,  in  reality,  to 
transfer  the  choice  from  the  Dioceses  to  the  House  of  Deputies  or  the  Standing 
Committees  ;  for  the  latter  could  arbitrarily  refuse  assent  until  the  man  of  theii- 
preference  should  be  selected.  There  would  no  longer  be  freedom  of  choice  in 
tlie  Dioceses ;  and  the  question  would  be,  not  who  is  the  best  man,  but  who 
would  the  House  of  Deputies,  or  the  Standing  Committees,  consent  to?  If, 
therefore,  the  provision  indicated  is  susceptible  of  such  construction,  then  it 
must  fall  to  the  ground,  as  being  in  direct  antagonism  with  the  (.Constitution. 
But  it  is  not  so  susceptible.  The  "  assent  "  must  follow,  as  a  matter  of  course, 
if  the  "  testimony "  of  the  required  certificate  can  be  justly  given.  In  con- 
struing a  statute,  all  its  parts  must  be  considered.  The  emphatic  point  to  be 
regarded,  and  upon  which  the  "  assent"  must  depend,  is  based  upon  the  con- 
sideration as  to  whether  or  not  the  "testimony"  specified  in  the  required 
certificate  can  be  rightfully  given.  No  other  condition  of  assent  can  be  inter- 
posed without  a  palpable  disregard  of  the  law.  The  certificate  is  the  "  evi- 
dence of  conscTit ""  intended,  and.  in  fact,  prescribed  by  the  law-makers.     This 


10 

is  manifest  from  the  various  provisions  of  the  canon,  but  particularly  so  from 
elause  2  of  section  5,  wiiicli  expressly  declares  that  •■  the  evidence  of  the  con- 
xent  of  the  different  Standing  Committees  shall  be  in  the  form  prescribed  for 
the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies  in  General  Convention  " — that  is,  the 
form  of  "  the  evidence  of  consent  of  the  different  Standing  Committees  "  shall 
be  the  same  as  that  prescribed  for  "  the  evidence  of  the  consent  "  of  the 
'•  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies."  Surely,  in  the  light  of  this  provision, 
it  cannot  be  argued  that  the  "  evidence  of  the  consent  "  provided  for  the  one 
case  w^as  not  intended  to  apply  to  the  other.  This  -'form'"  of  the  ••testi- 
mony," thus  required,  is  as  follows  : 

"We,"  *  *  •' fully  sensible  how  important  it  is  that  the'sacred  office 
o<'  a  Bishop  should  not  be  unworthily  conferred,"  *  *  "  do,  in  tlie  presence 
of  Almighty  God,  tr.siifi/  that  A.  B.  is  not,  so  far  as  ivc  are  informed,  justly  liable 
to  evil  report,  either  for  error  in  religion,  or  for  vicioi/sness  of  life;  and  that  we 
do  not  know  or  believe  there  is  any  impediment,  on  account  of  which  he  ought 
not  to  be  consecrated  to  that  holy  Office,  but  that  he  hath,  as  we  believe,  led 
his  life,  for  three  years  last  past,  piously,  soberly,  and  honestly." 

The  recital  in  this  "  testimony  "  that  the  Bishop-elect  "is  not,  so  far  as 
we  are  informed,  justly  liable  to  evil  report"  "for  error  in  religion.""  is  tlio 
only  one  in  respect  to  which  the  late  House  of  Deputies  assumed  to  put  Dr. 
Seymour  upon  his  trial  as  indicated,  and  is  the  only  one  which  v/ill  be  likely 
to  involve  any  serious  question.  And  it  was  the  only  possible  basis  of  tlie 
so-called  "judicial"  investigation,  except  so  far  as  it  may  have  proceeded  un- 
der cover  of  what  we  have  shown  to  be  the  utterly  untenable  idea  that  "the 
assent  to  his  consecration  "  might  be  given  or  withheld,  according  to  the 
irresponsible  will  or  pleasure  of  tliis  fancied  court  of  "investigation." 

When  the  Bishop-elect  goes  before  the  House  of  Deputies  for  ■•  their  ap- 
probation of  his  testimonials  "  and  for  their  "assent  to  his  consecration,"  and 
the  House,  either  in  open  or  secret  session,  disapprove  of  the  one  and  refuse 
assent  to  the  other,  it  is  due  to  the  Diocese  that  made  the  election,  to  the  Bishop- 
elect,  and  to  the  Church  at  large,  that  they  should  place  before  the  Church,  in 
sjme  authentic  form,  the  reason  for  their  non-approval  or  dissent.  If  "for 
error  in  religion."  it  becomes  a  trial  and  judgment.  If  for  mere  caprice  or 
personal  dislike  of  the  Bishop-elect,  then  it  becomes  a  refusal  to  "assent" 
without  sufficient  reason— an  exercise  of  mere  arbitrary  will  power,  which 
would  cause  any  House  of  Deputies  to  hesitate  before  it  would  venture  t<j  make 
it  public.  And  this  view  coniirms  what  has  ah'ead}'  been  suggested,  that  it 
never  coidd  have  been  the  intention  of  the  canon  to  clothe  the  House  of  Depu- 
ties with  the  arbitrary  power,  by  their  own  volition,  to  refuse  approval  or 
consent.  And  what  is  true  of  the  House  of  Deputies,  in  this  regard,  is  also 
true  of  the  Standing  Committees,  when  they  are  called  upon  to  act  in  such 
case. 

We  have  ascertained  that  the  certiticate  embraces  merely  •'testimony,"  in 
the  form  prescribed  for  the  "evidence  of  the  consent"  to  the  consecration.  Can 
it  be  pretended  by  any  one,  in  his  sober  senses,  that  the  item  of  "  evidence  " 
j'cfeiTed  to,  that  the  Bishop-elect  "is  not,  so  far  as  we  are  informed,  justly  liable 


11 

to  evil  report  for  error  in  religion'' — can  it  be  pretended,  we  say,  that  this  item 
of  "  evidence"  authorizes  the  witnesses  to  resolve  themselves  into  a  court  for  the 
purpose  of  gaining  further  information,  by  a  secret  and  ex  parte  trial,  the  accused 
and  his  witnesses  not  being  heard,  or  even  allowed  to  be  present  ?  Does  this  item 
of  "  evidence"  clothe  the  witnesses  who  are  asked  to  testify  so  far  as  they  are 
"  informed  " — does  it  clothe  them  with  the  powers  of  inquisition,  and  authorize 
them  to  pi'onounce  "judicial  condemnation"  "for  error  in  roligion  ?"  The 
very  statement  of  the  proposition  is  a  reductio  ad  absurdum.  The  House  of  Depu- 
ties were  asked  to  "  testify  "  "so  far  as"  they  were  "  informed,"  &c.  They 
refused  to  so  testify  ;  but  instead  instituted  ex  parte  investigation,  and,  as  we 
are  informed,  pronounced  "judicial  condemnation."  As  well  might  a  witness 
called,  in  a  secvilar  couit,  to  give  evidence  of  his  information,  put  himself,  be- 
fore responding,  upon  inquiry  for  prejudicial  gossip,  and  then  imagine  that  his 
office  was  "judicially  "  to  condemn.  As  well  might  a  witness  to  a  will,  wlien 
called  upon  to  prove  its  execution,  decline  to  answer  whether  at  the  making  of 
.the  in.strument  the  testator  was  of  sound  mind  and  memory,  resolve  himself 
into  the  mockery  of  a  fiincied  court  of  probate,  privately  consult  the  views  of 
those  who  desire  to  break  the  testament,  and  then,  with  gravity  and  conse- 
quence, pronounce  an  imaginary  "judicial  condemnation"  of  the  will,  for 
want  of  testamentary  capacity  in  the  maker. 

The  simple  truth  is,  that  neither  the  House  of  Deputies,  nor  the  Standing 
Committees,  possess  any  judicial  powers  whatever.  The  former  is  merely  a 
legislative  body,  and  may  also,  as  may  the  Standing  Committees,  in  certain 
cases,  bear  witness  ;  but  any,  even  the  slightest,  assumption  of  judicial  powers, 
by  either,  is  nothing  short  of  usurpation.  That  this  is  true,  especially  in 
reference  to  any  manner  of  trial  of  presbyters  or  deacons,  is  all  the  more  mani- 
fest from  tlie  fact  that  the  laws  of  the  Church  make  speciiic  provision  for  such 
trial,  and  in  which  neither  House  of  the  General  Convention,  nor  the  various 
Standing  Committees,  have  any  part  or  lot.  The  mode  of  any  such  trial  is,  by 
the  Gth  Article  of  the  General  Constitution,  left  to  the  Dioceses  respectively  ; 
and  the  different  Dioceses  have  provided  therefor.  Expressio  unius,  est  exclusio 
alteriiis.  More  than  this,  by  Section  1st,  Canon  I,  of  Title  II,  of  the  Canons  of 
the  General  Convention,  it  is  expressly  provided  that  "  every  minister  shall  be 
amenable,  for  oiFenses  committed  by  him,  to  the  Bishop,  and,  if  there  be  no 
Bishop,  to  the  clerical  members  of  the  Standing  Committee  of  the  Diocese  in 
which  he  is  canonically  resident  at  the  time  of  the  charge."  Being  so  amena- 
ble, it  follows  that  he  is  amenable  to  no  other  authority.  In  addition  to  all 
this,  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  House  of  Deputies,  and  the  various 
Standing  Committees,  are  composed  in  part  of  laymen.  The  theory  that  such 
bodies  may  exercise  judicial  powers  in  cases  of  Bishops  elect,  is  violative  of 
that  well  established  principle  of  law,  both  in  church  and  state,  that  every  man 
is  entitled  to  be  tried  by  his  peers  for  offenses  charged — at  least  that  he  shall  not 
be  tried  by  his  inferiors.  That  laymen  may  sit  in  judgment  upon  ministers  in 
this  Church  of  ours,  especially  when  questions  as  to  "  error  in  religion"  are 
involved,  is  a  proposition  that  may  be  fitly  characterized  as  monstrously  absurd. 


12 

Your  Committee  would  not  feel  called  upon — indeed  would  not  deem  the 
expenditure  of  so  much  time  justifiable — thus  to  discuss  the  want  of  judicial 
powers  in  the  House  of  Deputies,  or  in  the  Standing  Commitees,  were  it  not 
for  the  fact  that  the  House  of  Deputies  of  the  late  General  Convention  gravely 
assumed  such  powers,  and,  as  we  are  assured  by  the  Presiding  Officer  of  that 
body,  made  an  "investigation"  during  "  eight  days'  secret  session,"  in  which 
"  the  piw'rfence  was  painfully  conflicting,"  and  in  which,  "in  the  outcome,  the 
soundest  and  best  men  arrived  at  opposite  conclusions  ;"  and  in  which  also  the 
technical  "majority"  (but  arfual  minority)  acted  with  "Judiciul  clearness," 
and  perpetrated  a  "judicial  act,"  hj  pronouncing  a  "judicial  condemnation^' 
of  Dr.  Seymour,  because  of  a  certain  assumed  "false  doctrine"  which  the 
technical  majority  of  that  body  imagined,  without  any  real  evidence  in  that 
direction,  he  "was  implicated  in  holding  or  encouraging."  The  fact  of  such 
assumption  of  powers  must  be  our  apology. 

But  it  may  be  objected  against  this  argument  showing  the  want  of  judicial 
authority  in  the  bodies  indicated  that,  nevertheless,  the  House  of  Deputies  or 
the  Standing  Committees  are  to  "testify"  that  the  Bishop-elect  "  is  not,  so  far 
as""  they  "  are  informed,  justly  liable  to  evil  report"'  "  for  error  in  religion,"' 
kv.;  and  that,  therefore,  they  ought  to  be  permitted  to  ascertain  if,  or  not,  he 
be  so  liable.  Our  reply  is,  first,  that  we  have  already  demonstrated  that  the 
right  to  testify  as  to  "information"  does  not  involve  authority  to  institute  in- 
quisition, in  order  that  the  witness  may  charge  himself,  before  testifying,  with 
more  information,  especially  ex  parte  and  secret  information,  that  the  possessor 
shrinks  from  exposing  to  the  light  of  open  day;  seer  ndli/,  that  the  "informa- 
tion" contemplated  must  be  such  as  the  laws  of  the  Church  will  i-ecognize  as 
competent  for  the  purposes  of  evidence  ;  and,  thirdly,  that  the  "  error  in  relig- 
ion" for  which  the  party  must  be  "justly  liable  to  evil  report,"  in  order  ti> 
justify  the  withholding  of  the  certificate,  must  be  such  as  the  Church  authori- 
tatively pronounces  to  be  "error  in  religion" — not  merely  what  certain  indi- 
viduals in  the  Church  conceive  to  be  such  error.  The  first  of  these  propositions 
needs  no  further  illustration.  As  to  the  second — the  "information"  contem- 
plated in  the  certificate — we  remark  that  it  must  be  cleai-  to  every  reasoning- 
mind  that  in  so  grave  a  matter  the  law-makers  did  not  have  in  view  mere  idle 
rumors  or  secret  gossip,  but  "information,"  such  as  the  Church  regards  and  re- 
ceives through  her  constituted  authorities,  unless  it  may  be  in  extraordinary  cases^ 
hereinafter  considered.  If  a  minister  of  the  Church  be  accused,  even  by  public- 
rumor,  of  any  of  the  oifenses  for  which  Canon  2,  Title  II,  of  the  General  Canons,, 
declares  him  liable  to  presentment  and  trial,  it  becomes  the  "  duty  of  the  Bishop,, 
or,  if  there  be  no  Bishop,  of  the  clerical  members  of  the  Standing  Comraittee. 
to  gee  that  an  inquiry  be  instituted  as  to  the  truth  of  such  public  rumor,"'  i*!:c. 
One  of  the  ofiFenses  enumerated,  for  which  such  minister  is  liable  to  be  tried,  is 
lliat  of  "holding  and  teaching,  publicly  or  privately,  and  advisedly,  any  doctrine 
contrary  to  that  held  by  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Churcli  in  the  United  States 
of  America."  This  will  embrace  any  "error  in  religion"  contemplated  by  the 
certificate  under  discussion,  in  reference  to  a  Bishop-elect :    and   the  provision 


13 

of  the  canon  tii-st  quoted  above  is  the  method  Jixed  by  the  laws  of  the  Church  for 
ti^fertaining  and  being  ^^  informed"  as  to  ivhether  or  not  ang  minister  of  the  Diocesf 
is  '■'■justly  liable  to  evil  report"  ''/or  error  in  religion"  &c.  The  canons,  there- 
fore, having  determined  the  method  in  which  the  members  and  authorities  of  the 
<''hurch  may  be  "  informed"  in  this  regard,  the  information  thus  to  be  gained 
is,  unquestionably,  the  only  information  contemphited  in  the  same  body  of 
■canons  as  to  the  liability  of  such  minister  to  "evil  report"  for  such  "  eri-or  in 
religion,"  except  it  may  be  under  the  extraordinary  circumstances  yet  to  be 
■considered.  So  long  as  the  "inquiry"  provided  for  by  law  is  not  had,  for  want 
of  the  "public  rumor,"  or  otherwise,  just  so  long  the  minister  remains,  in  the 
eye  of  the  law,  in  good  and  "regular  standing"  in  his  Diocese,  and  according 
to  the  records  of  the  same.  In  the  State  a  man's  good  character  is  presumed 
until  the  contrary  is  made  legally  to  appear;  and  in  the  Church,  o  fortiori  a 
clergyman's  good  and  "regular  standing"  is  likewise  presumed  until  the  con- 
trary is  manifested  in  some  mode  known  to  ecclesiastical  law.  And,  moreover, 
the  information  that  would  warrant  a  refusal  to  gi-ant  the  testimonials  of  a 
Bishop-elect  must  be  equal  in  weight  and  degree  with  that  which  would  justify 
his  Bishop  in  denying  him  Letters  Dimissory.  The  form  required  for  such 
T,etters  Dimissory  is  as  follows  : 

"  I  hereby  certify  that  A.  B.,  who  has  signified  to  me  his  desire  to  be  ti-ans- 

ferred  to  the  ecclesiastical  authority  of  ,  is  a   presbyter   (or  deacon)  of 

,  in  regular  standing,  and  has  not,  so  far  as  I  know  or  believe,  been  justly 

liable  to  evil  report  for  error  in  religion  or  viciousness  of  life,  for  three  years 
last  past." 

Thus  a  Bishop,  in  granting  such  letters,  is  required  to  certify  in  regard  to 
"  error  in  religion,"  &c.,  in  quite  as  strong  terms  as  are  expressed  in  the  cer- 
titicate  in  favor  of  a  Bishop  elect;  and  so  it  will  be  seen  that  if  a  jjresbyter  is 
•entitled  to  Letters  Dimissory  from  his  Bishop,  he  is  equally  entitled,  if  calleil 
to  tlie  Episcopate,  to  the  certiticates  in  such  case  provided.  Can  there  be  any 
so  rash  as  to  contend  that  Dr.  Seymour  was  not  entitled  to  Letters  Dimissory 
from  his  Bishop  last  October,  or  that  any  Bishop-elect  is  not  entitled  to  such 
letters  from  his  Bishop  at  the  present  time  ? 

We  have  now  clearly  ascertained  the  rule  fixed  by  canon  law  in  regard  to 
the  "information''  contemplated  in  the  certificate  for  a  Bishop-elect.  The 
only  circumstances  under  wliich  the  House  of  Deputies,  or  the  Standing  Com- 
mittees, could  be  justified  in  departing  from  this  salutary  rule — a  rule  of  law, 
and  not  of  irhim — would  be  in  case  the  history  of  early  days  and  other  lands 
should  repeat  itself  here  in  this  country  of  ours,  and  a  whole  Diocese,  with  its 
Bishop,  become  heretic,  or  lapse  into  schism,  and  from  these  heretics  or  schis- 
matics a  Bishop  should  be  chosen  ;  or  under  some  other  such  extraordinary  con- 
dition. Under  such  circumstances,  the  restrictions  of  ordinary  laws  are  sus- 
pended ;  and  that  would  be  justifiable  which  under  other  conditions  would  be 
unlawful  and  revolutionary. 

The  third,  and  last,  point  to  be  considered  is,  what  is  the  •'  error  in  relig- 
ion "  for  which  the  Bishop-elect  must  be  "justly  liable  to  evil  report,"  in  order 
10  warrant   the    House  of  Deputies,  or  the  Standing  Committees,  in  refusing  to 


14 

grant  his  certificate  ?  The  answer  is  palpable,  that  it  must  be  such  as  the  Church 
standards  and  authorities  have  pronounced  to  be  "error  in  religion,"  and  not 
merely  what  individual  opinion  classifies  as  such  error.  If  doctrines  are  false, 
there  is  no  authority  short  of  a  Council  of  the  Church  that  can  so  authoritatively 
declare.  An  ecclesiastical  court  may  decide  whether  doctrinal  statements  are- 
repugnant  to  the  articles  and  formularies  ;  but  it  has  no  authority  to  pass  upon 
the  truth  or  falsity  of  the  doctrines  themselves.  It  follows  from  what  precedes, 
that  neither  the  House  of  Deputies  of  the  General  Convention,  nor  the  Standing 
(Committees,  in  any  aspect  of  the  case,  nor  under  any  circumstances,  have  any 
right  to  determine  that  he  who  holds  to  extreme  views  and  doctrines  is  "justly 
liable  to  evil  report  for  error  in  religion."  Nor,  yet,  have  they  any  authority 
to  hold  that  the  very  lowest  view  of  such  doctrines  involves  "  error  in  religion," 
by  reason  whereof  they  may  refuse  the  required  certificate  to  a  Bishop-elect- 
If  they  may  refuse  the  certificate  to  one  who  holds  to  high  views  of  the  Sacra-,- 
ments,  they  may  likewise  refuse  it  to  him  who  adheres  to  low  views  thereof; 
so  that  church  partisans,  in  the  majoiity,  may,  in  this  way,  put  the  minority 
"in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction,"  so  far  as  Bishops  of  their  schoolarc  con- 
cerned. The  law-makers  of  the  Church  never  contemplated,  nor  will  comnion 
sense  give  any  countenance  to  the  view,  that  the  form  of  certificate  prescribed,  or 
any  canonical  provision,  authorizes  either  the  House  of  Deputies,  or  the  Stand- 
ing Committees,  under  the  pretext  of  "error  in  religion,"  to  require  that  the 
views  of  a  Bishop-elect  must  conform  to  those  of  the  majority  who  are  calleJ 
upon  to  grant  the  necessary  certificate.  The  idea  of  any  such  authority  is  all 
the  more  monstrous  from  the  fact  that  such  a  construction  would  leave  a  Bishop- 
elect  at  the  mercy  of  the  Laity,  even  on  questions  of  do< trine ;  for  the  Laity, 
constituting  half  the  membership  of  these  bodies,  could  prevent  a  majority  vote 
in  favor  of  granting  the  certificate. 

The  proper  testimonials  being  granted,  it  then  remains  for  the  Bishops  of 
the  Church  to  judge  of  the  candidate,  and  to  grant  or  withhold  their  consent  to 
the  consecration.  They  are  not  limited  to  the  strict  rules  that  govern  the  House 
of  Deputies  and  the  Standing  Committees;  and  in  their  hands  the  matter  will 
be  safe. 

In  view  of  these  considerations,  your  Committee  recommend  the  adoptioia 
by  this  body  of  the  following  resolutions  : 

I.  Resolved,  By  the  Convention  of  the  Diocese  of  Illinois,  that  the  forego- 
ing report  be  and  is  hereby  adopted,  as  expressive  of  the  sense  of  this  Iwdy  in 
respect  to  the  matters  therein  discussed. 

II.  Resolved,  further.  That  this  Convention  hereby  enters  its  respectful 
but  solemn  protest  against  the  course  pursued  by  the  Lower  House  of  the  late- 
General  Convention,  in  the  case  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Seymour,  our  then  Bishop-elect, 
as  being  unprecedented,  unjustifiable,  and,  in  some  respects,  revolutionary. 

III.  Resolved,  That  we  hereby  declare  that,  in  the  judgment  of  this  Con- 
vention, nothing  has  appeared   to  impair  our  confidence  in   Dr.  Seymour,  or  sra 


liis  fitness  for  the  high  office  of  Bishop  of  this  Diocese,  for  which  we  originally 
chose  him. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

Rev.  Geo.  F.  Ctshman,  D.  D. 

Rev.  Clinton  Locke,  D.  D. 

Rev.  Wm.  B.  Corbyn,  D.  D. 

Rev.  C.  H.  W.  Stocking,  D.1». 

Rev.  Robert  McMurdy,  D.  D.,  &c. 

Rev.  Walter  F.  Lloyd,  LL.  D. 

Rev.  Frank  M.  Gregg. 

S.  Corning  Judd. 

S.  H.  Treat. 

Lucius  B.  Otis. 

Edwin  S.  Fowler. 

E.  M.  M.  Clarke. 

On  motion,  the  third  resolution  presented  by  the  Committee, 
referring  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  Seymour,  was  adopted. 

Thereupon,  the  following  resolution  was  presented,  read,  and, 
on  motion,  unanimously  adopted  : 

Resolved,  That  this  report  be,  and  hereby  is,  respectfully  submitted  to  the 
the  deliberate  judgment  of  the  Church  at  large,  it  being  too  late  in  the  session 
of  this  Convention  for  a  full  and  free  discussion  of  the  principal  proposition 
therein  stated  and  the  argument  based  upon  it,  and  that  its  further  considera- 
tion be  postponed  to  the  next  Diocesan  Convention. 


Note  of  the  Committee  announcing  officially  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  Seymour 
Jus  election  to  the  Bishopric  of  Illinois. 


Chicago,  September  20th,  1874. 

IlEVEnENo  AND  Deah  Siu  : 

We,  the  undersigned,  were  appointed  a  committee 
of  the  Clergy  and  Laity  of  the  Diocese  of  Illinois  in 
Convention  assembled,  to  inform  you  that  on  the  16th  of 
September,  1874,  in  said  Convention  you  were  elected 
Bishop  of  Illinois,  and  that  the  Testimonials  were  signed 
by  all  the  Clerical  and  Lay  delegates  present  at  the  con- 
vention. 

We  ask  in  the  name  of  all  our  Brethren  your  accept- 
ance of  that  high  office,  assuring  you  of  a  cordial  wel- 
come, and  hearty  support  in  the  work  of  our  common 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  His  Bride  the  Catholic  Church. 

SAMUEL  CHASE,  D.D., 

CLINTON   LOCKE,  D.I)., 

ROBERT   McMURDY,  D.D.,  LL.D., 

EDWARD  SULLIVAN,  S.T.D., 

F.  M.  GREGG, 

GEORGE  W.   DEAN,   D.D., 

L.  B.  OTIS, 

WM.  FITZHUGH    WHITEHOUSE, 

GEORGE  H.   HARLOW, 

To  the 

Rev.  George  F.  Seymour,  D.D. 


THE  REV.   DR.  SEYMOUR'S  REPLY. 


General  Theological  Seminary,  N.  Y. 

September   25///,    1874. 
My  Dear  Brethren : 

Your  official  notice  of  my  election  to  the  Bishopric  of  Illinois, 
the  signing  of  my  testimonials  by  all  the  Clerical  and  Lay  Delegates 
present  at  the  Convention,  and  your  request  on  their  behalf  that  I 
would  accept  the  high  and  holy  office  thus  tendered  me,  and  pledg- 
ing on  their  and  your  part  a  cordial  welcome  and  hearty  support, 
has  been  received. 

No  one  could  have  been  more  surprised  than  I  was,  when  I 
learned  a  little  more  than  a  week  ago  of  the  result  of  the  election  in 
the  Convention  of  the  Diocese  of  Illinois,  which  you  have  so  kindly 
communicated  to  me.  I  was  utterly  unprepared  for  such  a  sum- 
mons. I  could  not  bring  myself  to  listen  to  the  call  were  it  other 
than  it  is.  I  am  now  charged  with  many  trusts,  and  have  my  heart 
bound  up  in  many  works.  The  General  Church  has  bidden  me 
teach  her  Candidates  for  Holy  Orders  Ecclesiastical  History,  and 
for  nine  years  I  have  been  at  my  post,  growing  to  love  my  duties 
more  and  more,  and  finding  in  my  pupils  in  their  gratitude  and 
aftection  an  ample  recompense  for  all  my  toils.  Through  God's 
providential  dispensations  I  have  been  called  upon  to  take  the  over- 
sight of  this  great  Theological  School  for  nearly  half  the  period  of 
my  service  as  a  Professor,  and  its  interests  and  work,  by  the  divine 
blessing,  have  prospered  in  ray  hands,  and  now  there  open  before 
me  brighter  prospects  of  success  than  ever  before. 

The  House  of  Mercy  in  this  city,  of  which  I  have  been  Chap- 
lain for  full  seven  years,  has  a  claim  upon  me  which  I  cannot  put 
aside  without   genuine   anguish  of  spirit.      The  helplessness  of  the 


inmates  appeals  to  me,  and  the  heroic  ministry  of  the  Sisters  of 
St.  Mary,  in  charge  of  the  Institution,  makes  it  hard  for  me  lo  lay 
down  the  work  which  it  has  been  my  great  privilege  to  do  so  long. 

The  Diocese  of  New  York  is  very  dear  to  me,  it  has  ever  been 
my  ecclesiastical  home ;  and  my  Bishop — I  began  my  ministry  as  a 
deacon  with  his  accession  to  the  episcopate ;  among  the  first  of  his 
official  acts  was  to  lay  his  hands  upon  me— my  Bishop  holds  me  by 
many  cords,  which  bind  me  with  a  veneration  and  affection  to  him 
which  could  not  easily  be  exceeded.  It  would  be  tedious  to  men- 
tion other  considerations  of  an  official  and  personal  character,  which 
combine  to  exert  upon  me  a  powerful  influence  to  persuade  me  to 
remain  where  I  am.  But  it  seems  to  me  that  the  voice  of  God,  the 
Holy  Ghost,  has  spoken  in  the  choice  to  which  the  Diocese  of  Illinois 
was  led  in  the  election  at  the  recent  Convention,  and  if  that  voice  is 
confirmed  by  the  approval  of  the  General  Church,  I  shall  feel 
assured  that,  unworthy  as  I  am,  the  divine  call  bids  me  go  to  you. 
In  that  event  let  me  say  to  you  dear  Brethren,  and  through  you  to 
the  Clergy  and  Laity  of  Illinois,  that  I  shall  come  among  you  to  be 
yours  for  life,  and  for  death  ;  to  be  over  you  in  the  Lord  for  your 
spiritual  welfare,  to  have  you,  as  the  great  Apostle  says,  ever  in  my 
heart.  I  shall  wish  you  all  to  give  yourselves  with  me  to  the  things 
which  make  for  peace,  and  to  devote  yourselves  with  all  your  powers 
to  promote  the  spread  of  God's  Kingdom  throughout  the  great  em- 
pire entrusted  to  our  common  care.  I  shall  desire  to  know  and  love 
vou  all,  without  exception  or  distinction,  as  my  dear  Brethren  and 
Children  in  Christ,  united  in  the  Communion  of  that  portion  of  His 
One,  Holy,  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church  of  which  in  the  good 
providence  of  God  we  are  members. 

Twice  in  the  most  solemn  and  momentous  hours  which  can  pos- 
sibly occur  in  the  experience  of  any  human  being,  when  admitted 
successively  to  the  Orders  of  Deacon,  and  of  Priest,  I  have  borne  wit- 
ness to  my  acceptance  of  the  doctrine,  discipline,  and  worship  of  our 
Church,  and  once  again,  after  an  interval  of  many  years,  should  I  be 
consecrated  Bishop,  I  shall  have  to  record  the  same  testimony  in  the 
presence  of  God  and  the  Congregation.  No  one  could  do  so  with 
more  entire  loyalty  free  from  every  reservation  than  I  shall,  and 
hence  I  shall  come  to  you  expecting  from  you  the  same  unreserved 
and  unwavering  fidelity  to  principle,  and  obligation  and  duty.  It 
will  be  my  aim,  the  desire  of  my  heart,  to  share  with  you  in  all  your 
labors,  trials,  difficulties,  and  if  need  be,  distresses  in  behalf  of 
God's  Church  :   to  take   the  lead,  to   be  the  first   in  these  things  and 


such  as  these,  this  will  be  my  ambition,  this  I  shall  ever  pray  to  God 
to  grant  me  as  a  sacred  and  blessed  privilege. 

In  any  event,  dear  Brethren,  I  am  speaking  to  the  Clergy  and 
Laity  of  Illinois,  I  entreat  you  to  pray  for  one,  whom  you  have  hon- 
ored with  a  choice,  which  conferred,  so  far  as  you  had  the  power, 
the  best  which  you  had  to  give,  pray  for  him  that  he  may  have  giace 
to  follow,  even  though  it  be  afar  off,  his  adorable  Lord,  and  make 
him  even  to  the  end  his  example,  his  ever  present  help,  and  that  it 
may  be  granted  him  to  be  united  with  you  in  the  future  eternal 
world,  it  will  be  infinitely  beyond  his  deserving,  as  the  least,  and  low- 
liest in  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven. 

Invoking  God's  choicest  blessings  upon  you  dear  Brethren,  and 
the  Diocese  which  you  represent,  I  remain  with  great  respect  and 
sincere  regard  faithfully  and  affectionatelv  your  Brother  in  Christ. 


GEORGE    F.    SEYMOUR. 


For 


Rev.  Samuel  Chase,   D.l)., 

Rev.  Clinton  Locke,   D.I)., 

Rev.  Rokt.  McMurdy,  D.l).  LL.D., 

Rev.  Edward  Sullivan,  S.T.D., 

Rev.  F.  M.  Gregg, 

Rev.  George  W.  Dean,   D.l)., 

L.  B.  Otis,  Esq., 

Wm.  Fitzhugh  Whitehouse,   Esq., 

George  H.  Harlow,  Esq., 


Committee. 


iX5935.C87 

Assault  of  the  Bishop  of  Western  New 

Princeton  Theological  Semmary-Speer  Library 


^1012  00149  4873 


il 


